text:
It's yours
- Previous Ta-Nehisi Coates Post Woe to the New York Knicks
- Next Ta-Nehisi Coates Post Shooting the Messenger
It's yours
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here's what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State's appeal. "We have not defeated the idea," he said. "We do not even understand the idea." In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as "not Islamic" and as al-Qaeda's "jayvee team," statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.
Defining common cultural literacy for an increasingly diverse nation.
Is the culture war over?
That seems an absurd question. This is an age when Confederate monuments still stand; when white-privilege denialism is surging on social media; when legislators and educators in Arizona and Texas propose banning ethnic studies in public schools and assign textbooks euphemizing the slave trade; when fear of Hispanic and Asian immigrants remains strong enough to prevent immigration reform in Congress; when the simple assertion that #BlackLivesMatter cannot be accepted by all but is instead contested petulantly by many non-blacks as divisive, even discriminatory.
And that's looking only at race. Add gender, guns, gays, and God to the mix and the culture war seems to be raging along quite nicely.
As the world frets over Greece, a separate crisis looms in China.
This summer has not been calm for the global economy. In Europe, a Greek referendum this Sunday may determine whether the country will remain in the eurozone. In North America, meanwhile, the governor of Puerto Rico claimed last week that the island would be unable to pay off its debts, raising unsettling questions about the health of American municipal bonds.
But the season's biggest economic crisis may be occurring in Asia, where shares in China's two major stock exchanges have nosedived in the past three weeks. Since June 12, the Shanghai stock exchange has lost 24 percent of its value, while the damage in the southern city of Shenzhen has been even greater at 30 percent. The tumble has already wiped out more than $2.4 trillion in wealth—a figure roughly 10 times the size of Greece's economy.
A new book by the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne tackles arguments that the two institutions are compatible.
In May 1988, a 13-year-old girl named Ashley King was admitted to Phoenix Children's Hospital by court order. She had a tumor on her leg—an osteogenic sarcoma—that, writes Jerry Coyne in his book Faith Versus Fact, was "larger than a basketball," and was causing her leg to decay while her body started to shut down. Ashley's Christian Scientist parents, however, refused to allow doctors permission to amputate, and instead moved their daughter to a Christian Science sanatorium, where, in accordance with the tenets of their faith, "there was no medical care, not even pain medication." Ashley's mother and father arranged a collective pray-in to help her recover—to no avail. Three weeks later, she died.
What compassion does to the brain.
In 1992, the neuroscientist Richard Davidson got a challenge from the Dalai Lama. By that point, he'd spent his career asking why people respond to, in his words, "life's slings and arrows" in different ways. Why are some people more resilient than others in the face of tragedy? And is resilience something you can gain through practice?
The Dalai Lama had a different question for Davidson when he visited the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader at his residence in Dharamsala, India. "He said: 'You've been using the tools of modern neuroscience to study depression, and anxiety, and fear. Why can't you use those same tools to study kindness and compassion?' … I did not have a very good answer. I said it was hard."
Be kind, show understanding, do good—but, some scientists say, don't try to feel others' pain.
In 2006, then-senator Barack Obama gave a commencement speech offering what seemed like very sensible advice. "There's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit," he told Northwestern's graduating class. "But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit—the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through those who are different from us—the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room."
In the years since then, the country has followed Obama's counsel, at least when it comes to talking about empathy. It's become a buzzword, extolled by Arianna Huffington, taught to doctors and cops, and used as a test for politicians. "We are on the cusp of an epic shift," according to Jeremy Rifkin's 2010 book The Empathetic Civilization. "The Age of Reason is being eclipsed by the Age of Empathy."
For centuries, experts have predicted that machines would make workers obsolete. That moment may finally be arriving. Could that be a good thing?
1. Youngstown, U.S.A.
The end of work is still just a futuristic concept for most of the United States, but it is something like a moment in history for Youngstown, Ohio, one its residents can cite with precision: September 19, 1977.
For much of the 20th century, Youngstown's steel mills delivered such great prosperity that the city was a model of the American dream, boasting a median income and a homeownership rate that were among the nation's highest. But as manufacturing shifted abroad after World War II, Youngstown steel suffered, and on that gray September afternoon in 1977, Youngstown Sheet and Tube announced the shuttering of its Campbell Works mill. Within five years, the city lost 50,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in manufacturing wages. The effect was so severe that a term was coined to describe the fallout: regional depression.
A Fourth of July thought experiment
The Fourth of July—a time we Americans set aside to celebrate our independence and mark the war we waged to achieve it, along with the battles that followed. There was the War of 1812, the War of 1833, the First Ohio-Virginia War, the Three States' War, the First Black Insurrection, the Great War, the Second Black Insurrection, the Atlantic War, the Florida Intervention.
Confused? These are actually conflicts invented for the novel The Disunited States of America by Harry Turtledove, a prolific (and sometimes-pseudonymous) author of alternate histories with a Ph.D. in Byzantine history. The book is set in the 2090s in an alternate United States that is far from united. In fact, the states, having failed to ratify a constitution following the American Revolution, are separate countries that oscillate between cooperating and warring with one another, as in Europe.
People labeled "smart" at a young age don't deal well with being wrong. Life grows stagnant.
At whatever age smart people develop the idea that they are smart, they also tend to develop vulnerability around relinquishing that label. So the difference between telling a kid "You did a great job" and "You are smart" isn't subtle. That is, at least, according to one growing movement in education and parenting that advocates for retirement of "the S word."
The idea is that when we praise kids for being smart, those kids think: Oh good, I'm smart. And then later, when those kids mess up, which they will, they think: Oh no, I'm not smart after all. People will think I'm not smart after all. And that's the worst. That's a risk to avoid, they learn."Smart" kids stand to become especially averse to making mistakes, which are critical to learning and succeeding.
Former Senator Jim Webb is the fifth Democrat to enter the race—and by far the most conservative one.
In a different era's Democratic Party, Jim Webb might be a serious contender for the presidential nomination. He's a war hero and former Navy secretary, but he has been an outspoken opponent of recent military interventions. He's a former senator from Virginia, a purple state. He has a strong populist streak, could appeal to working-class white voters, and might even have crossover appeal from his days as a member of the Reagan administration.
In today's leftward drifting Democratic Party, however, it's hard to see Webb—who declared his candidacy Thursday—getting very far. As surprising as Bernie Sanders's rise in the polls has been, he looks more like the Democratic base than Webb does. The Virginian is progressive on a few major issues, including the military and campaign spending, but he's far to the center or even right on others: He's against affirmative action, supports gun rights, and is a defender of coal. During the George W. Bush administration, Democrats loved to have him as a foil to the White House. It's hard to imagine the national electorate will cotton to him in the same way. Webb's statement essentially saying he had no problem with the Confederate battle flag flying in places like the grounds of the South Carolina capitol may have been the final straw. (At 69, he's also older than Hillary Clinton, whose age has been a topic of debate, though still younger than Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.)
Ryan Carson, the CEO of Treehouse, discusses the benefits of a four-day workweek and why more companies can, and should, do it.
A new documentary explores an evolutionary mystery.
It's quite possible to live and date in New York without a smartphone.


text:
Cockermouth gallery is a picture of health 10 years on
Last updated at 20:49, Thursday, 17 May 2012
Ten years ago a derelict building with filthy floors and no staircase was transformed into a quaint gallery showcasing a wealth of Cumbrian and national artists.
Percy House, on Market Place in Cockermouth, is a building steeped in history and was taken over by friends Karen Cottier and Viv Austin.
Now the pair are marking a milestone for the businesses.
Karen and Viv were made redundant from their roles running a gallery for Groundwork Trust and a few months later decided to open their own art space.
Karen says: "We both thought 'If we don't give it a go we will regret it' and here we are 10 years on."
"We'd looked around a lot of places but we really wanted an interesting building. This one just felt right and we kept coming back to it.
"When we first saw it, it was a derelict building at the time, the floors were filthy, in fact everything was, and there was no staircase. We put that in later."
When they first started out the pair only had 20 artists on their books and now have more than 150, including Robert Askew, Linda Ryle, Alan Richmond and Shirley Shackleton.
They also sell ceramics, photographs, metalwork and jewellery.
Viv says: "The first week we were open the gallery was packed and we were really worried we were going to sell out of everything.
"The gallery has gone from strength to strength over the years. Even after we were flooded in 2009, people commented about how much we had been missed and how good it was to see us back."
Over the years the pair have done minor alterations to the grade two listed building, including extending out into the cottage at the back, putting in stairs and painting the outside.
However, the oak beams, which date from 1390, and the original flagstone floor remain.
The upstairs, which has a Tudor ceiling from 1598, was once lived in by the Percy Bayliff, who worked for Henry Percy, the ninth Earl of Northumberland.
In the early 1900s the building was turned into three shops.
Karen added: "We've always had to be really careful when doing any work on the building because it's listed.
"It is steeped in history and that's always something we've tried to maintain because we think it adds to the character of the gallery."
Viv says: "It feels great to have reached our 10-year anniversary. Running the gallery is something we both enjoy and we hope to go on for many years to come."
The gallery is currently showcasing work by Angie Flynn called Women in Textiles until May 31.
First published at 19:20, Thursday, 17 May 2012
Published by http://www.timesandstar.co.uk
Have your say
Be the first to comment on this article!
Make your comment
More news
- Workington flats plans are approved for second time
- More homes get the go-ahead in Cockermouth
- UPDATED: Planners say no to Bothel solar farm proposal (1 comment)
- Foodbank launches children's lunch packs
- Hair today....gone tomorrow
- Toilet fire ends football tournament on sour note
- Top marks for West Cumbria teachers
- Did you hear Workington's big bang? (19 comments)
- Blue is the colour for Seaton toddler Zayn
- Lakes College learners celebrated

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Football Bowl Subdivision
· Conferences
· Gaming Matchup
· Injuries (A-M)
· Injuries (N-Z)
· News
· Current Odds
· Live Odds
· Schedule
· Top-25 Scoreboard
· Full Scoreboard
· Statistics
· Top-25 Results
· Transactions
· Weather
· Legends
· Amway
More Football
· Arena
· DIV II College
· DIV III College
· FCS College
The Sports Network
DATE & TIME: Saturday, November 24, 3:30 p.m. (et)
FACTS & STATS: Site: TCF Bank Stadium (50,805) -- Minneapolis, Minnesota. Television: Big Ten Network. Home Record: MSU 2-5, Minnesota 4-2. Away Record: MSU 3-1, Minnesota 2-3. Neutral Record: MSU 0-0, Minnesota 0-0. Conference Record: MSU 2-5, Minnesota 2-5. Series Record: Michigan State leads, 27-17.
GAME NOTES: Big Ten rivals will square off at TCF Bank Stadium on Saturday afternoon to close out the regular season when the Minnesota Golden Gophers play host to the Michigan State Spartans.
Michigan State started the season as a nationally-ranked squad, and early in the season it did little to disprove that notion with wins in each of its first two games. Since then however, the Spartans have disappointed. They've lost four of five, most recently to Northwestern at home last week (23-20), and they'll need to win this game to become bowl eligible.
Minnesota, much like Michigan State, hasn't fared well in the Big Ten with just a 2-5 record, but thanks to a 4-0 start to the season in its non- conference games, it is already eligible for a bowl bid. The Gophers will try to bounce back from a 38-14 loss at Nebraska last week.
The Spartans hold a 27-17 lead over the Gophers in the all-time series, which includes win in each of the past two seasons.
Michigan State's offense has not performed up to expectations, as it ranks second to last in the Big Ten in scoring with just 19.7 ppg.
One bright spot for the unit has been star running back Le'Veon Bell, who has racked up 1,382 yards, second-most in the conference, and 10 rushing touchdowns. Bell has been a true workhorse back, garnering 315 carries this season, while no one else on the roster has more than 16. He ran for 133 yards a week ago versus Northwestern for his sixth 100-yard game of the year and the 10th of his career.
Even with a big-time performer in the backfield to take some of the pressure off, Andrew Maxwell hasn't performed very well under center. He has completed less than 54 percent of his passes for 2,435 yards with 12 touchdowns and seven interceptions. His 110.7 efficiency rating ranks only ahead of Illinois' Nathan Scheelhaase amongst starting Big Ten quarterbacks.
Keith Mumphrey is the Spartans' top receiving threat with 40 receptions for 506 yards and a touchdown, and Bennie Fowler (423 yards) and Dion Sims (447 yards) have also been effective.
The lackluster offensive attack has spoiled a very good season for the Michigan State defense. It allows just 16.9 ppg, and its total yards allowance (289.4 ypg) ranks seventh in the nation.
Max Bullough leads the team in tackles (95), tackles for loss (11) and sacks (2.5), while also making an interception and forcing a fumble. Darqueze Dennard and Kurtis Drummond have two picks apiece.
The rough-and-tumble Big Ten has also gotten the best of Minnesota's offense, and it too struggles to put up yards (337.6 ypg) and points (22.4 ppg).
The Gophers have had a revolving door at the quarterback position. Philip Nelson started last week but he was terrible, completing 8-of-23 passes for 59 yards and two interceptions, and his numbers on the year haven't been much better (674 yards, six TDs, four INTs). Max Shortell (822 yards, six TDs, four INTs) and MarQueis Gray (464 yards, five TDs, two INTs) have also taken snaps.
The quarterback carousel hasn't helped the receivers much. A.J. Barker had a team-high 30 catches for 577 yards and seven touchdowns, but he abruptly left the team. In his absence, the only remaining player with at least 200 yards receiving is Isaac Fruechte (19 receptions, 256 yards, two TDs).
The Gophers may be better suited leaning more on the running game, which is paced by Donnell Kirkwood (830 yards, five TDs). Gray (327 yards, five TDs) has also been utilized more in recent weeks at both running back and receiver rather than at quarterback.
While Minnesota's defense has played well (23.7 ppg, 346.5 ypg), it is oftentimes not good enough to make up for the sluggish offense.
D.L. Wilhite is one of the best pass rushers in the conference with 7.5 sacks and 10 tackles for loss. Derrick Wells, Michael Carter and Cedric Thompson each have two interceptions.
Eight of the Spartans' 11 games have been decided by one score, and this has all the makings of another one of those tough Big Ten battles. Michigan State has shown, however, that it has difficulty closing out tight games, meaning Minnesota gets a narrow edge playing at home.
Sports Network Predicted Outcome: Minnesota 21, Michigan State 20
Powered by The Sports Network.


text:
My first taste of KoRn....
Hi everyone. I'm sure no one will actually read this. But I do, in fact, enjoy talking to myself. So here we go. I'm a bit of a newer Korn fan. I feel bad that I never got into them earlier but, in my defense, they put out their first album the year I was born, I believe. Plus I went through some god awful catholic education through grade school and high school which basically means everyone around me listened to either Christian music or straight up poppy garbage. So it's not all my fault I grew up listening to, for the most part, shitty music. My sophomore year of high school, however, I realized what I was missing and got into some rock and metal.
And then… I listened to this cd. I popped it into my little portable CD player, slipped my head phones on, and laid my head back. With eyes closed, I listened to the entire album straight through. Music filled my headphones and eventually there was silence. I opened my eyes. My face was red and my eyes were puffy. Tears were flooding down my face. My body felt like a live wire. Have you ever had one of those dreams where you're giving a speech in your underwear? That's exactly what I felt like. Exposed. I was sad and mad and my hands were shaking. And I was confused. How could this little silver disc cause me to feel so… much? How could a few words and a couple guitar riffs thrown together elicit such pure emotions?
I have on many occasions listened to a song and felt sadness or anger but never in my life have I felt anything that strong. It's as if other bands take an emotion and then wrap layers over it to make it less potent so as to be more comfortable to listen to. But these songs I heard were the truest, rawest, most pure from of the emotion imaginable. Every lyric, beat and guitar sent an electric current through my body. It stuck a dagger into my chest and twisted mercilessly. The music was so true it left me feeling physically uncomfortable.
Earnest Hemingway once said that in order to be a writer, "All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know." It sounds simple enough. But in actual practice the famous author's advice is quite difficult and is also very rare. I think the same idea holds true for music. Never have I ever heard anything so raw, pure, original, inventive, angry, complicated, beautiful, or true than when I listen to KoRn. And I don't think it's likely I ever will.
Glad to see some new fans here... Does make me flashback to my own first Korn-experience.
Raised in the House music era in Holland it was difficult to enjoy something else. I saw Freak On A Leash on the TMF channel and I was sold. Follow The Leader was stuck in my discman for months. I went backwards album-wise untill Untouchables came out and never stopped listening since.
I love that this post that I put up a year ago has become a place for people to share their korn stories. I don't get on this site much anymore but it has brought me so much joy in so many different facets, all of which were long lasting. Some even eternal. It's funny because I started this post out with an assumption that no one would read it. But it appears I was wrong. Thank you so much to everyone who has read my story or shared your own. I may not be on much anymore but I get email notifications when someone does comment and I read every single post, I assure you. Words cannot express how much I enjoy reading all of them. And I hope that I get to hear even more :)
I was 13 years old when I first listened to a Korn song. It was freak on a leash. Unfortunately I did not had the opportunity listening to Korn when I was younger because in Germany they did not played many Korn songs and I really didn't know much about the band.
The main reason why I discovered Korn so late was because I never knew who I really was and I was always afraid to admit who I really am. I become a Korn fan in 2009. I still cannot believe that it took me so long to discover this awesome band. Without their music I would still feel this emptiness inside of me that I carried around since so long. I got inspired my Jonathan Davis and I started to write my inner thoughts down and expressed my real feelings about everything. Even words can't describe how much their music helped me.
The first time I ever listened to KoRn was when Got the Life came on the radio. It was so catchy and I wondered what that song was. I went online, looked up the lyrics, saw the video and got hooked to the song and was introduced to the band. Although, Faget was the song that really got me into KoRn because it was so raw and angsty.
haha, i remember first time i ever listened to korn was freak on a leash, and all i thought was "how cool that voodoo chant thing was!"
wasn't until later that i really sat down and listened to all of what they have that suddenly i felt like someone had been watching me and told them to write my life story in song.
I know exactly how you feel. I got into korn late too... shortly before take a look in the mirror.
The first time I have listened to the KoRn was.. on TV with the South Park! It was "Korn's Groovy Pirate Ghost Mystery" which is the twelfth episode of the third season and still my favorite. At the end of episode they were playing "Falling away from me". After this one time my first thought was "HAVE TO HEAR THEM ALL!"
Now it's been about 4 years from this, and I'm going to see KoRn live! I'm so happy about it!!! I'm listening to KoRn's music all the time and I never get tired of it! I think that it will be with me till the end of times.
Also, because I'm an artist it give me so much inspirations in art and power to do, to imagine even more and more!
I want to say THANKS to the KoRn for a great music they have made and they will made more in future! I'm very grateful for all that!


text:
The picture shown, contains some of the following stones and the plating shade. If you wish to order this exactly as it appears, click add to cart:
Primary stones :
Crystal Golden Shadow
Secondary stones :
Smoked Topaz
Plating :
Antiqued Gold
Secondary stone is crystal.
Please select the primary stone colour and plating, then add to cart.
Click to view full crystal chart
See full colour chart
Click to view full platting chart
See full palting chart


text:
Ghost Whisperer: The Complete Series DVD
$87.99Add to Wish list
You Save: $42.00 32% off
- Additional Details
- Format: DVD
- Rating: Not Rated
- Number of Discs: 29
- Run Time: 8308 Minutes
- Region: 1
- Aspect Ratio: Widescreen
- Language: English
- Studio: Paramount
- DVD Release Date: October 12, 2010
- Audio:
ENGLISH: Dolby Digital 5.1 [CC]
ENGLISH: Dolby Digital Stereo [CC]
- Cast: Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jamie Kennedy, Camryn Manheim, Aisha Tyler, David Conrad
- Genre: TV Series
- Color: Color
- Includes:
Ghost Whisperer: The Complete First Season
A Tour Of Grandview
Scare Tactics
Deleted Scenes
Audio Commentaries By Cast And Crew On Select Episodes
Blooper Reel
Ghost Whisperer: The Complete Second Season
A Conversation with The Living
Grandview Graveyard
Melinda's Closet
Ghostly Visions
The Other Side: Webseries And Accompanying Trailer, Plus Behind-The-Scenes With Star Mark Hapka
Jennifer Love Hewitt Speed Painting Video
Crystal Ball Mind Game
Ghost Whisperer: The Complete Third Season
The Other Side II Webseries: See The World Through The Eyes Of A Ghost By Venturing Beyond Melinda Gordon's Ghost Whisperer World And Experiencing The Other Side.
Interactive Haunted House: Take A Spooky Interactive Ride Through A Haunted House.
Welcome To The Underworld: Secrets Buried Under Melinda's Hometown Uncovered.
Bringing The Spirits To Life: An In-Depth Look Into What It Takes To Emulate An Angry Spirit.
Interactive Mashup: Create Your Very Own Cemetery Scene.
Animated Short: Step Into The World Of Ghost Whisperer Animation And See What Happens To Melinda Gordon Between Season 2 And Season 3.
Melinda's Haunted Diary: Interact With Melinda's Haunted Diary.
Evolution Of Melinda: Watch Melinda Gordon's Fashion Evolve Over Three Seasons Of Ghost Whisperer.
Payne's World: Jay Mohr Discusses His Character And Shares His Experiences With Ghosts, Both On- And Off-Screen.
- Commentary By John Gray, James Chressanthis And P.K. Simonds On Selected Episodes.
Ghost Whisperer: The Complete Fourth Season
The Other Side III Webseries
Grave Mistakes
Interactive Haunted Dollhouse
Interactive Fashion Style Guide
Season 4: Love Never Dies
The Jamie Kennedy Experiment
Scoring The Spirit World.
Ghost Whisperer: The Final Season
A Triple Threat - Jennifer Love Hewitt Is A Rare "Triple Threat" - Star, Executive Producer And Director Follow Her As She Navigates Her Way Through Her Grueling Schedule.
Celebrating 100 - Go Behind The Scenes Of Ghost Whisperer Jumps Five Years Into The Future, And Introduces Us To Aiden, The 5-Year-Old Son Of Melinda And Jim. We Talk To The Cast And Executive Producers Ian Sander, Kim Moses And P.K. Simonds To Learn More About This New Character, And How Everyone In Melinda's World Has Grown In The Five-Year Time Span.
The Other Side IV Webseries - A Young Couple Must Find A Way To Rid Their New Home Of Dark Spirits When A Wild Ghost Forms A Disturbing Bond With Their Daughters
Ghost Town - Helps Cross Over A Town Of Ghostly Citizens Trapped In The World Of The Living!
Ghosts Of Rockland Memorial - Enter Our Haunted Hospital And Race Against The Clock To Find All The Scary Hidden Ghosts From The Final Season.
- Release Date: 2005
In the Ghost Whisperer Complete Series, Melinda Gordon communicates with earthbound spirits, ghosts who cling to the living because they have unfinished business that prevents them from moving beyond the familiar plane of existence that we call life. Inspired in part by the work of famed medium James Van Praagh and of Mary Ann Winkowski, a real-life communicator with spirits, Ghost Whisperer explores the spiritual side of life and death as Melinda navigates among the dead and the living in her sometimes chilling, sometimes heartrending and sometimes amusing attempts to act as an intermediary between the ghosts and those they haunt.
Purchase the Ghost Whisperer Complete Series collection that will let you visit the spirit world along with Melinda Gordon as often as you'd like, even though the hit series has ended.


text:
LiveThursday, May 15
Enable automatic updates every minute? YES NO
News from the Oxford Mail
Reporting World War 1 in 'real time'
Oxford United news from the Oxford Mail
Features editor Tim Hughes
Food & feature writer Katherine MacAlister
Photographer Ed Nix
Photographer Jon Lewis
Photographer Damian Halliwell
The latest business news
Alex Regan
Andy Ffrench
Annabal Bagdi
Callum Keown
David Rivers
Joe Nimmo
Luke Sproule
Martin Elvery
Matt Oliver
Michael Race
Naomi Herring
Hannah Somerville
Peter Hughes
Like and follow us on Facebook
Join our business community on Facebook
Enable automatic updates every minute? YES NO


text:
Skip to Section Subnavigation Skip to Page Content
For first-year and transfer students.
Associate and bachelor's degree programs for men and women 4 full years out of high school.
Elementary, middle level and secondary certification for men and women with a bachelor's degree.
Skip to Page Content
Field Hockey
The Wilson College Athletic Department is proud to announce the "Athlete of the Week". Sophomore, Hillary Swartz (Carlisle, Pa. / Boiling Springs) was chosen as the Athlete of the Week based on her outstanding performance on the field hockey field. Swartz recorded a hat trick during Wilson's 5-1 victory over Cedar Crest College. Swartz is the Phoenix's current point leader with 17 points, recording five goals and seven assists.
Congratulations, Hillary!


text:
News and Announcements
|24 October
|Reminder: Observing Challenges End Soon!
There are only two months left to get a certificate for achieving one of our centennial observing challenges!
|21 October
|Special Notice #261: Outburst of the UGWZ Candidate BW Scl
The short period cataclysmic variable BW Scl appears to be in outburst. The object was detected in outburst at m(vis)=9.6 by M. Linnolt on 2011 October 21.3146 (JD 2455855.8146), and confirmed by A. Plummer at m(vis)=9.4 on October 21.3424. Observations of this object are encouraged. The object has conflicting classifications in astronomical literature, but is probably a WZ Sge-type dwarf nova rather than a novalike variable.
BW Scl is located at the following (J2000) coordinates:
|19 October
|AAVSO 100th Anniversary Commemorative Posters
By popular demand! A set of twenty pdf commemorative posters exhibited at AAVSO Headquarters is available for downloading from our ftp site.
The posters show portraits of the AAVSO's Directors, Presidents, Secretaries, Treasurers, Council members, and Staff from 1911 to 2011, and the top Visual, CCD, PEP, and Photographic/Photovisual observers.
Click on the links below to download each poster.
|19 October
|Deep light curve of GRB 110918A
|18 October
|Sky & Telescope to Celebrate Seventy Years!
It's not only the AAVSO that is celebrating milestones this month. Our close personal friends, Sky & Telescope magazine is celebrating its 70th Anniversary in its own style.
|18 October
|Group Photo from the AAVSO's 100th Anniversary Meeting
Click on this link for a downloadable high-resolution group photo (1.7MB)
Click on this link for a downloadable KEY to the photo (877kb pdf)
Downloadable key includes list of those who attended but were not present for the photo
|09 October
|New HQ Officially Dedicated
The AAVSO's new headquarters was officially dedicated at a ceremony during the 100th Annual Meeting of the AAVSO, part of our 2011 centennial celebrations.
The event was broadcast live on U-Stream. A video archive is still available on their servers.
Sky & Telescope has a nice news article covering the dedication and events surrounding it.
|29 September
|Charts and Sequences Update September 2011
The following stars (objects) have new or revised sequences as of September 29, 2011.
Please update your charts if you observe any of these objects.
|26 September
|New eJAAVSO preprint: Recent Minima of 146 EB Stars by G. Samolyk
ej151: "Recent Minima of 146 Eclipsing Binary Stars" by G. Samolyk
|23 September
|Astronomy Now Interview w/Williams and Saladyga
Astronomy Now has posted an interesting dialog with the authors of Advancing Variable Star Astronomy: Tom Williams and Michael Saladyga.
|22 September
|Special Notice 257: Reminder to observe V455 And for HST observations
September 22, 2011: As detailed in AAVSO Alert Notice 448, Dr. Paula Szkody has requested monitoring of the WZ Sge-type cataclysmic variable V455 And through October 10. Observations tonight - September 22/23, tomorrow, and Saturday are crucial.
|16 September
|Request to Take Astronomy Knowledge Survey
Dear AAVSO Members and Observers,
|16 September
|Special Notice #256: Request for fast optical time series of SN 2011fe
September 16, 2011: Dr. Bradley Schaefer (LSU) requests fast time series of SN 2011fe over the next several weeks to attempt the detection of fast optical variations in supernova light.
The following request was prepared by Dr. Schaefer which we forward at his request:
|14 September
|Special Notice 255: Cataclysmic Variable in Draco = PNV J18422792+4837425
September 14, 2011: IAU CBAT Central Bureau Electronic Telegram 2818 (Daniel W. E. Green, ed.) announces the discovery by Hideo Nishimura, Miyawaki, Kakegawa, Shizuoka-ken, Japan, of a cataclysmic variable in Draco on 2011 Sept. 5.529 UT at magnitude 11.8 (reported by S. Nakano, Sumoto, Japan). The variable was designated PNV J18422792+4837425 when posted on the Central Bureau's TOCP webpage.
|14 September
|Three new eJAAVSO preprints
ej148: "Deep Infrared ZAMS FIts to Benchmark Open Clusters Hosting delta Scuti Stars" by D. J. Majaess, D. G. TUrner, D. J. Lane, T. Krajci
ej149: "Delta Scuti Behavior Detected in HD 349422" by G. Turner, R. Kaitchuck
ej150: "A Search for Eclipsing Binary Light Curve Variations Among MACHO Project Light Curves of 3,256 Fundamental-Mode RR Lyrae Variables in the Galactic Bulge" by M. W. Richmond
|14 September
|Supernova Photometry Chat with Dr. Michael Richmond
On 13 September, 2011, we had the good fortune to have Dr. Michael Richmond, Physics Professor and Observatory Director for the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York chat with us about SN 2011fe and supernova photometry in general. Here is the transcript from that chat session.
|12 September
|Alert Notice 448: Request for observations of V455 AND in support of HST observations
September 12, 2011:
|11 September
|Alert Notice 447: Nova Sco 2011 No. 2 = PNV J16364440-4132340 = PNV J16364300-4132460
September 10, 2011
|10 September
|Special Notice #254: T Pyx Campaign continues
September 10, 2011: The outbursting recurrent nova T Pyx is past solar conjunction and is widely observable again. Arto Oksanen in Finland has been following it through July and August and reports it currently at 10th magnitude. Please add T Pyx back to your observing schedule if possible to follow the decline of its outburst.
|10 September
|Special Notice #253: Request for Observations of MAXI J1836-194
September 10, 2011: Dr. Gregory Sivakoff (U. of Alberta) requests observations of the X-ray binary star MAXI J1836-194 as part of the JACPOT collaboration studying stellar radio jets from compact binaries. There is no predetermined duration for this campaign, but observations are requested now to coincide with ongoing X-ray and radio observations.
|09 September
|Supernova Chat 13 Sept at 4:00PM ET
Supernova 2011fe has been gaining a lot of interest, and not just among astronomers, either! News of SN 2011fe made "The News Hour" for instance.
|08 September
|Special Notice #252: Upcoming Eclipse of Zeta Aurigae
September 8, 2011:
|06 September
|Supernova 2011fe: La supernova más brillante de los últimos 20 años
|06 September
|Special Notice #251: Possible transient in Scorpius
September 6, 2011: John Seach (Chatsworth Island, NSW, Australia) reports the detection of a transient object in Scorpius, having a magnitude of 9.8 on 2011 September 6.37 UT (JD 2455810.87). Observations were made with a DSLR and 50mm f/1.2 lens and 5 second exposure, with limiting magnitude 10.5. The object is visible on four separate frames taken after the discovery was made.
|05 September
|New Supernovae Photometry Discussion Forum


text:
Iron and Rope Mirror - Pewter
With its knotted jute rope and antiqued finish, our handcrafted mirror exudes the aged warmth of a vintage find.
- Oxidized metal frame
- Hangs securely from a bracket on the back panel
- Decorative hook matches metal finish
- Simple assembly required
- In black, distressed white or pewter
- Black and distressed white mirrors suspended from natural rope, pewter mirror suspended from ivory rope
Shown in pewter.
Iron and Rope Mirror - Pewter
- 20" diam.
- 24" diam.


text:
- Nicole Small
- Roanoke, VA
- United States
This conversation is closed.
Should Science be Considered a Religion?
This "conversation" has been voluntarily removed from the site. I apologize for any inconveniences. Feel free to add more comments or continue existing conversations here.
Aug 30 2012: Science should be practiced "reliiously" but not be a "religion" in and of itself. Science is reason, religion is yielding of reason to prescibed dogma.
Aug 31 2012: I don't believe our concept of Science or Religion should ever reach a dogma where one consumes the other. We don't exist where absolutes exist(if there is such a place) but have much utility of definitions where appropriate. Keep an open mind my friends. Change is the only constant and cultivating a mindset to nurture our lives in this state of flux I deem very appropriate
Nicole Small
Aug 29 2012: Thank you to everyone for participating in this discussion. I knew it would "stir the pot," but I wasn't quite prepared for the volume of passionate arguements. This forced me to "defend" a proposal that I didn't fully agree with in the first place (a good learning experience for myself.) When someone asks what my "religion" is, I do say that I believe in Science, however, that is often the only way to word it when you want to express such a firm position to a "religious" person. From experience, I've received better reactions from CHRISTIANS when I refer to Science as my "religion." They typically recognize the word "religion" as a set of beliefs. It's an easy word for them to comprehend. I think that what I learned from this is that most of us HERE believe that Science is not a religion; not just because religion is theological, but also because science isn't a belief at all. Science is a tool. It only APPEARS to be "branching" away from "classical" thinking like theology and philosophy. In reality, though, it's still moving "forward" and "pointing" towards an "ultimate" goal, which would be to discover the meaning of life, the universe and everything. I hope this gave everyone a chance to explore more introspectively and discover something new about themselves.
- +4
Aug 29 2012: Interesting discussion. Im not surprised some religious people like to equate scince with religion. Do you wonder why?
Dan F
Aug 28 2012: Nicole, here are my thoughts,
- +4
Science is not religion. The closest similarity is that both appeal to a wide variety of people, which in turn often bring about close friendships or connections that reinforce one another's involvement. Both have recognized scholars. One more similarity - they both address questions involving the HOWS AND WHYS of reality.
I am a naturalist to the bone. You may detect some bias in my quick list below as to how they differ.
Religion: Does not wander far from what is considered sacred, or central to the faith
Science: Wide open to anything that can be physically examined and tested.
Religion: Commitment, authority and dogma
Science: Empirical knowledge, discovery, application
World view:
Religion: Varies around the world
Science: Universal methodology and recognition
Religion: Control
Science: Application, understanding
Religion: Theocracies to minor roles, but overall big cultural influence with nice stimulating tax benefits.
Science: Modern era take off with profound expanding role generally.
Religion: Promises
Science: No promises
Detractive elements:
Religion: Exploiting individuals, etc.
Science: Environmentally costly commercial application of science technology driven by financial gain, etc.
Religion: Faith and acceptance
Science: Curiosity and perspective
What do you think?
Aug 28 2012: Interesting perspective. I agree there are more differences that relevant similarities.
Doug White
Aug 26 2012: Wow, doesn't look like a whole lot of scientists are posting here. There are a LOT of misconceptions about science. First, science doesn't 'say' anything about anything. Science is a process, a methodology. We have many theories that say what we believe to be the way the universe works, but those are just theories. You have to keep in mind that they are wrong. All of them. Not some, all. That's a hard concept for a lot of people to wrap their mind around, but it is in fact true. Now, many of our theories are very good at predicting things. They are generally much better than theories we had decades ago, or centuries ago, or millennia ago. But they are still just theories. Literally every scientific theory will be improved upon at some point in the future, assuming we survive long enough. So, if you want to discuss the biggest difference between religion and science, it is right there.
- +4
Religion purports to tell us facts about existence, about philosophy, and about how we should live our lives. When religion is at it's best, it is acting as a guide for us, helping us to reduce the amount of harm we do to each other and to the world. When it is at its worst, it is telling us how things came to be, and giving us 'laws', complete with punishments that we will suffer if we disobey. At its very worst, religion makes the claim that we already know the answers to the most important questions in the universe.
Science simply acknowledges that we know very little, but that we have the capacity to learn, to understand. It provides a methodology for discovering more and more about the universe, and finding out where our previous 'best theories' are incorrect. Nothing is ever proven true in science. We only prove things false, and hopefully find new theories that are harder to prove false.
Aug 26 2012: Just to say, because a theory can be improved or that extra detail can be added to it doesn't make it wrong. Such as germ theory, we may discover that a certain protein causes illness A but it doesn't change the fact that pathogen B had the protein inside it hence causing infection.
Patrick King
Aug 20 2012: It's certainly not a debate worth getting upset about. One's position depends entirely on how you define religion and that's not a very clear subject. Most definitions say that it is often associated with supernatural origins of the world and moral codes, but neither is absolutely necessary.
- +3
There is no doubt that science fulfills many of the roles that religions typically would have, most obviously, explaining natural phenomena who's cause mystified us. Another facet of science that it shares to some degree with religion is the awe it can inspire. I consider the clearest demonstration of this to be religious people watching nature documentaries and considering the immense beauty to be a confirmation of their belief, despite the documentaries being explicitly naturalistic. Finally though science does not generate divine moral codes, it does inform us about our behaviour and the origins for our morality, and through game theory we can see how best to structure codes.
If science is to be considered a religion however, it must be recognized as a very special religion. One that describes the universe with objectivity, instead of a projecting our nature on to nature.
It's not surprising that the question was met with hostility. On the one hand there are atheists who are sick of hearing that atheism is a religion, quite understandably, and consider this suggestion to be a hostile one. On the other hand there are those who would rather we keep discussions of religion and science separate, as non-overlapping magesteria, perhaps because of their own religious views or because they see the conflict as being unhelpful for the advancement of science. I have some sympathy for these concerns, but I think that a lot of religion does overlap with science, for unlike religion science is quite well defined, and a young-earth creationist has necessarily entered its domain.
There's not much to gained from arguing terminology, I think we can all agree that science is awesome.
Barry Palmer
Aug 20 2012: Somehow I thought the key word in your question was 'considered.' Specifically, could someone who was looking at science from the outside, someone who lacks a good understanding of the true nature of science, could such a person consider science to be a religion.
- +3
It is clear that some religious people attack science (or people who rely on science), by saying that science is a religion, or that scientists consider science a replacement for religion. I do not take these attacks very seriously because the attacker is either ignorant or is disingenuous and appealing to emotions rather than reason.
I think it would be entirely possible for someone to get the impression that science is a system of beliefs, and is very similar to a religion. Some religious people bring up their children to believe that everything they need to know and understand is in the Bible or the Quran. These people often consider science to be evil. Their children might get the impression that science is an evil religion.
Then there are people like Nicole. "My beliefs lie in Science, yet I'm not supposed to call it my religion. I'm trying hard to make sense of this." This use of the word 'religion' fits the fourth definition of the term in my dictionary. I am certain that Nicole is not the first or last person to call Science their religion. Personally, I do not find this offensive or unintelligent. I can understand why Nicole is having a hard time making sense of this conversation.
It is clear that some people who believe in science find it very upsetting to have this belief called a religion. People who consider most or all religions to be fictitious myths that undermine the scientific approach to truth, would not want science to be lumped together with religions.
I believe in the scientific approach to truth. I also believe science has its limits, and is incapable of discovering the whole truth.
If Nicole wants to say that science is her religion, I have no problem with that.
Aug 21 2012: Some words have many meanings.
God for example.
We are pretty flexible with how we use words.
Sometimes there might be more or less accurate ways of describing or conveying what you mean to others.
Perhaps when Nicole says Science is her religion it infers exactly the type of vague meaning she wants to most people
Maybe she means that her world view is based on science. Or maybe as you point out that Science is something she pursues with religious Zeal.
I guess we can call science whatever we like. It mighty not mean the same thing to all of us. But maybe calling Science a religion could mean a lot of things or confuse people.
The opening statement is gone now. Maybe that helped explained what she meant.
Saying Science is my religion is open to a lot of speculation.
Aug 21 2012: I agree Obey.
Different people will have slightly different meanings for words, as I did with the word 'considered.'
I have heard other people use this expression before, and I found it confusing. I think this is the first time I took the time to give it some good thought. I still do not feel completely comfortable with the expression, but when I try to see it from Nicole's viewpoint, it makes sense.
Perhaps we could find a different way to express this same idea, without using the word religion. I often find it difficult to speak of people who rely on science as their approach to understanding reality and to solving problems. Do you know of a term or phrase that might be a good substitute? Perhaps we could describe ourselves as science advocates.
Nicole, would you be comfortable with an alternative expression?
Justin Elkin
Aug 30 2012: I think of Science and Religion as long lost brothers, who having never been so close before, are blind to their relation and more capable of said madness than reconciliation as the blindness persists. Science may be blind to things not privy to empirical analysis while Religion is blind to processes and claims it can "skip" empirical analysis all in the name of Truth. It's not an exercise of futility to attempt what appears at first glance, as evidenced by Brett, to be a definitive wording of intangible things when it's realistic purpose is to prompt questions demanding higher understanding of the individual experience. Greater practical use and utility for mutual concern are the fruits of intellectual labor. Religions propose a battle between good and evil, enlightenment and ignorance, etc. With stories some act of treason to begin that fight. For me, the importance lies in the allusion to a state of mind before "good and evil" of an intellectual soveriegnty. The word God and past conceptions of absolutes does no justice to the understanding posterity may enjoy if those in the present can fearlessly face our own hinderances to inquiring on "God", "Time", "Reality" etc. Can Reason and conjurings of words one day enlighten us to the most utility of a given environment? Can a mutual acknowledgement of and sense of identification with the whole consummate the realization and expression of the individual? I like to think so...
- +2
Charles Ames
Aug 30 2012: I try to stay away from intellectual sovereignty as much as possible -- that way lies madness. To me it makes more sense to focus on utility. (I can get away with this, because science lays no claim to the "Truth", only to models of the world that make accurate predictions.)
- +2
Nonetheless we legitimately get into questions like those you pose because uncovering internal contradictions and fundamental disagreements with observations are some of the primary ways we find out that we need better models. (Disagreement with scripture, however, does not count against an otherwise useful theory.)
Its a bit easier on the imagination to run evolution backwards to the first biochemical reactions than it is to get one's mind around "what happened before time began?" That very questions occupies the best minds in Cosmology and remains a subject of intense debate. My limited understanding of the current trend is that our notion of time is mostly an illusion. There was no beginning, nor will there be an end, and so there is no way to ask the question "what was there before time began?"
Aug 30 2012: There was no beginning, nor will there be an end, and so there is no way to ask the question "what was there before time began?"
I can't disagree with that concept, it is often difficult to allow for that which seems impossible to understand to just be. So all too often we invent answers to help us sleep at night secure in our knowledge. And that type of thinking is only a problem if one is inflexible in their willingness to revisit said knowledge.
Justin Elkin
Aug 28 2012: I haven't had time to read everyone's posts. I wish not to digress, however, perhaps we should approach this in terms of whether religion is a science. A science in terms of observation, the past as the experiment, gather data from history, and draw conclusions. We should keep in mind religious founders/prophets were not megalomaniacal control freaks but sought to answer questions of existential importance their countrymen looked to them for probably because they were the most intelligent and knowledgeable at that time. We can go through the vast list of atrocities that have arose with the advent of religion but I like to focus on the benefits a concept of the higher power has brought us.
- +2
We are all familiar with the question, if a tree falls in the woods and noone is there to hear it, Does it make a sound? Most of us would answer of course because we understand what sound is and how it travels. The prophet of yore had no knowledge of acoustics much less the vocabulary in his native language to express such knowledge so it passes into the realm of "God makes it so, have faith" or Dhamma. Whether it's looked at as righteousness or a quest to end suffering, the concept of the higher power gave our ancestors the means to a code of behavior that allows for the cultivation of such knowledge. Sure, people have used great messages for evil means and control but to say that's all it's for is crazy. The death of culture and higher ideals are a real thing especially to cultures of antiquity. Presently, there is a disconnect between Scientific Reasoning and Reigious Values that are in need of reconciliation so we can all uplift eachother into the next great step of human acheivement.
Nicole Small
Aug 28 2012: Unlike some other people, I can tell that you are looking at this thought logically and without the visor of emotion covering your eyes. When I postulated the idea, I wasn't prepared for the outcome. I'm accustomed to receiving that sort of passionate response from Christians, but not Science-minded people (many of whom claim to have no beliefs beyond what they can experience-Atheists.) Atheism, in a sense, could be refusal to believe in the mechanics of the quantum (unseen) world. The mechanics of the quantum world (now, more than ever with new discoveries) allow for possibilities like space and time travel, multiple dimensions, extraterrestrial contact, A.I., replicators (molecular assemblers,) man-made gravity fields and weather-control. I believe that some day we'll design a way to transfer conscious thoughts through biologically-based man-made brain tissue patched to the brain that acts as transmitters and receivers for brain waves between others who possess the same technology. If a killer could telepathically feel/experience the pain and fear their victims experience, this may deter violent crime. It would be like a technological improvement on the psychological theories explored in A Clockwork Orange- forced empathy. In addition, having telepathic abilities could lead to an asexual race. If we could read our partners' thoughts, we'd all have strong feelings about how others see us. You may discover that your partner isn't as interested as you are, you could see who they actually are attracted to, etc. To avoid the pain of rejection without being forced to give up the new technology, humans would decide to use the tools we already possess now and procreate in labs without the need for emotions. I know this all sounds like far-fetched Science Fiction, but there are A LOT of Science Fiction ideas of the past that are now mass-produced in factories. Why shouldn't we believe that even more of that is possible?
- +1
Aug 28 2012: Thanks. I try to imagine I was sitting at a table with the Super Best Friends(various religion figures) with a empathetic view. You can imagine some futuristic stuff. We have to be extremely careful with potentially destructive technologies and assess/contain to the best of our abilities the greater evils that mutually arise with greater innovation.
Aug 29 2012: @Justin -- I'm responding to your post below (Ted.com limits reply levels). I suspect my reply will not surprise you: Activating dogma eliminates the possibility of reasonable discourse. Now, it is certainly possible to have reasonable discourse with a Yankees fan, just not about the Yankees.
If find it ironic/tragic when science-minded folks act like Yankees fans in a debate like this one. Furthermore, do so isn't going to help alleviate religious-minded anxieties about scientific progress, nor science-minded anxieties about religious influence on public policy.
I liked your term "empathetic view" -- participating with empathy is the only way to learn something, especially about what that crazy person across the table might be trying to say. Dogma has to be at least temporarily set aside in order to achieve that kind of empathy.Aug 29 2012: The science-minded all too often fall into the same sort of dogmatic, idealogical positions that they argue against. When that happens, Reason is kidnapped and replaced with its evil twin, Rationalization.
Maybe human nature demands that we align with sides and present opposition. Maybe its simply because you posed this question in the "Debate" section of the site.
In any case, It is certainly ironic, if not downright tragic, to see people who claim to uphold the highest qualities of science -- skepticism, objectivity, reason, willingness to go where the evidence leads -- crippled by dogma. We need to do better.
Aug 29 2012: I wish people could express opinions better, myself included. Ideas expressed with word through Religion and Science are ultimately void of the absolute answers we believe they may reveal to and apply to all. What is ironic? What is tragic? Both may be a rationalization through generalization present in my own and Charles posts of which I would like to neutralize. I agree we do need to do better and 3 days is enough time to shed more light upon the question posed. What elements of Dogma cripple obeiscance to the highest qualities of Science? I don't ask in the spirit of attacking Charles. Rather I ask in the spirit of Reason and a belief of the "better" I, for one, believe reasonable discourse possesses.Aug 29 2012: Great! Hey let me run this by you. A question I recently asked an atheist friend. Maybe Science/Reason creates it's own problems like the ones you propose as well.
If there was, in fact, empirical knowledge throughout history to the beginning of Time, how can logic of evolution and/or atheism claim any intellectual sovereignty, when faced with a point in time where there is nothing to change from, nothing to attribute any distinction to/from, without identifying/acknowledging an entity of emergent transcendence...God?Aug 30 2012: Justin, just because you can't explain things, doesn't mean a deity is responsible. Explain the beginning of time? Believing in a god no more explains what happened before time, than science or atheism could/couldn't. Not understanding something is no reason to invent answers, even if one is unlikely to ever comprehend. Religion says, yep, got an answer for it. Science says, perhaps one day we will know. Atheism simply doesn't believe religion and may or may not believe science, Atheists are fickle like that. No dilemma for either science or Atheists. Plenty of dilemmas for Religion as the evident nature of our universe is being discovered.
Barry Palmer
Aug 26 2012: Science should not be considered a religion,
- +2
Because, in the USA, if science is a religion, then the government cannot fund science in any way, and science cannot be taught in our schools.
There are many ways of approaching this question, and one way is to consider its consequences.
Aug 26 2012: That's because the country is owned by Christians, essentially. They're the ones in control of virtually every aspect of our freedoms. Each government is controlled by a religion. Some are the same, some are vastly different and some are rather "neutral." I think you're right in saying that under religious (Christian) rule, this question appears silly. What I'm suggesting is that beliefs follow a clear path:
self-awareness, theology, philosophy, theory and the hopeful outcome is the fact. I don't see Science as diverging from this path, since the goal is the same. Science is the process we use to find the truth (it's in the same "neighborhood" as theory, but just a bit closer by providing proof.) Truth is the "crowning achievement" of all of the steps that were necessary in it's discovery.
Sep 1 2012: Nicole, I think you bring up some very interesting points. I would really like to like to examine your path that beliefs follow. "Self-awareness, theology, philosophy, theory, and the hopeful outcome is fact" is one way of thinking of it. Do you believe that these are somehow progressive? As if one "evolves" into the next? If that is what you are implying, I must disagree with your path. I am not sure that science can full uncover all truth in the world. It can certainly discover all scientific truth, but there are many areas which science cannot really comment on. Issues such as the meaning of life or morality are examples. These sort of areas are very important to humanity, but science is cannot really give a definite "truth" on these matters. Theology and Philosophy do have their places in society. They are different than Science's truth, but they still are valuable. Not only that, the two are not antagonistic to each other. It is possible to be religious and also a respectable member of the scientific community. It is not a frequently expressed idea, but Francis S. Collins, a leader in the Human Genome project, is both a Christian and a scientist.(http://www.genome.gov/10000779)
Barry Palmer
Aug 25 2012: Charles Ames, I must disagree with you about the definition of religion. The definition may be stable over time, but it varies a great deal from source to source. A number of definitions have been presented in the course of this conversation, and it appears to me that "religion" is one of the most ambiguous words in the English language. This ambiguity is magnified by small groups who claim to be a religion with no regard for the definition. Your point about connotations is displayed again and again throughout this conversation. Another point of controversy is the value placed on religion. Some consider all religions as harmful institutions that spread lies. Others think that religion is the only path to truth and that science is not worthy to be called a religion.
- +2
I am beginning to think that the term "religion" is so ambiguous that writing "science is a religion" is a meaningless statement. Its interpretation by the reader is unpredictable.
Thang Tran
Aug 25 2012: I believe someone has gone a little over board on the deconstructionism route here, though I don't blame you. The term "religion" is ambiguous because there hasn't been a clearly established and agreed upon definition of religion. That being said religion does have a meaning. Which definition of religion is the real question here. Otherwise, your post here would also be "ambiguous" as you used religion 6 times without quotation marks. If the question above is ambiguous then so is your argument.Aug 25 2012: 'writing "science is a religion" is a meaningless statement'
- +1
But if that's true, then wouldn't "science is not a religion" be equally meaningless?
I think this conversation is worth having precisely because of the ambiguity you point out.
Aug 25 2012: Agreed.
Barney Woods
Aug 24 2012: I'd like to think not, but science can form a very strong core belief in many people, to the point of refusal in accepting any other way of thinking.
- +2
Because it's important to protect such core beliefs in order to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, that belief system will ignore and even deny anything that does not fit in with it. Even though the human brain is capable of a greater breadth of thinking styles than singular beliefs.
I have seen here in these conversations on TED, many people who express a particular way of thinking that has dared to go against the scientific method and have been clubbed over the head by an atheistic 'blunt instrument' for their troubles.
That seems to me to be punishment meted out to the blasphemous. Is that not what they do in many religions?
Julian V
Aug 22 2012: I heard this somewhere and it is interesting to consider:
- +2
Religion: Acceptance without proof
Science: Rejection without proof
People can argue about what constitutes proof however and that definition is also something that is a fundamental difference between the two.
Comment deleted
Julian V
Aug 22 2012: Didn't say it was worthy of mindless rejection. Simply that, to a scientist, knowledge isn't knowledge until it "can" be scientifically verified (proven) at that time. Religion, on the other hand, needs a different form of proof to accept something as fact. A form of proof that science does not support.
- 0
Julian V
Aug 23 2012: Acceptance without proof
- +1
Please sir do not go into the woods at night there is a magic dragon in there and it will surely kill you.
So he lived the rest of his life in fear of the magical dragon in the woods.
Science isn't the ignorance of the word of others. It's simply the need of an individual to see something for themselves rather than to simply take the word of others as truth. Doesn't mean they won't consider the existence of the dragon as a possibility and act cautiously around the subject but they will expect some kind of proof.
E.g. How do you know there is a dragon if it will surely kill you if you see it? Who has been killed in the past? Does it have to be a dragon or could it be something else? etc. and that's before ever trying to directly see the dragon.
Luke Hobbs
Aug 22 2012: I think anything we devote ourselves to can be called a religion. Just look at how we automatically say "It's The Law" yet really whose law? God's law? Some billionaires law? Yet we follow it often unquestionably.
- +2
B Bevill
Aug 21 2012: Nothing should be a religion. The truth is what everyone should actively seek and defend. Anything that can not be proven causes stress and division between humans, so believing in something like that is pointless and diminishing. The truth, which science strives to find, is the only real end to what humans seek but it is humans that hide the findings of science from each other for what they perceive as personal gains and the ability to try and shape the direction of the world.
- +2
Aug 22 2012: B Bevill :
You talk as if religion is not about seeking and defending the truth . Many religious person can tell you this is not true , I'm one and that just don't happens .
Not anything that cannot be proven cause stress and divisions between humans , I mean this should be obvious , but even if it cause it doesn't mean that believing in something like that is pointless and diminishing --- it could be the inner content of that which has value . You judge now the thing only after its effects , you should also consider the thing itself . That's why I don't agree with your judgement .
Yuguo Zhang
Aug 21 2012: If a religion refers to a system of beliefs held with faith, in some extent science could be considered as a religion. Generally speaking, all religions are different theories, and science is just another theory for us to look at the world, especially on the issue about where we are from and who created us.
- +2
Gail .
Aug 21 2012: Science is not a system of beliefs held with faith. Science is not a theory. Science offers theories, and those theories change as evidence is discovered. Religions do not search for truth. They proclaim it and rely on faith (absence of evidence) to support their proclamations.
- +1
Aug 21 2012: Science do not have any theory on the issue about where we are from and who created us ....... religion has , then how do you know religion is not searching for the truth ?
Aug 21 2012: If you already know the answer, do you continue to look for it?Aug 21 2012: If there is but one truth (as in theology), then theo/god has done all, and then there is no science and no need to insult science by calling science a religion.
Humans do not need gods, they do not need to seek gods, they do not need to justify anything with any kind of gods. Humans that fear the unknown seek a godma/dogma to answer questions that they do not have the will/strength to seek their own answers.
Regurgitation of godma is never faith, it is fear.Aug 22 2012: Brett :
''If you already know the answer, do you continue to look for it?''
It's not about this , we as human beings can't have THE ANSWER ( with a total , absolute meaning ) , we have only answers . Even if we believe something is THE ANSWER , we can perceive it only as an answer .Aug 22 2012: Adelo :
If there is but one truth , it could mean god has done all but it doesn't mean that there is not science ; for us there is science , for god the truth .
So more properly would be : there is not need to insult religion by calling it a science .
According to your first phrase , if there is but one truth....... then human beings need god , right ?
If this need takes the form of explanation/justification , it is a different thing .
Yes , there are people who fear the unknown and believe in god because of it (and not only ) , I'm not one of them , so I ignore it .
Gabo Moreno
Aug 22 2012: The issues about where we come from and such in science are not beliefs, but results. That is very different to religions, and thus even there science is not at all like religion which tries and sells you imaginary origins and gods responsible for such origins. Science starts by asking questions, and trying to answer them by evidence. Quite the difference. So no. Explaining origins does not make science a religion.
- +1
Aug 22 2012: Explaining origins does make religion a science ---- until then it is only an assumption to say that what religion 'sells' is fantasy .
Aug 23 2012: Nope, "explaining" origins does not make anything a science unless you arrive at such explanations by the scientific method(s). religions don't start with a question, gather evidence, then conclude about origins. Religions sell you myths about such origins as imagined by different peoples. This is no assumption but a logical conclusion.Aug 23 2012: It still is an assumption as long as you can't verify if what the religious persons claim about origins is true or not , it could be true . As long as you can't verify anything , of course you can only imagine but even so it is too much to say that what those people claimed are myths .
"explaining" origins does not make anything a science unless you arrive at such explanations by the scientific method(s)." this is what I actually said myself .
Gail .
Aug 22 2012: Here is a video that will explain it calmly, rationally, and clearly.
- 0
Aug 22 2012: Yes , yes, we understand that science is not a belief held with faith .... so what ? does it mean that religion do not search for truth ? Obviously not , I mean you can have faith in a true thing .
Gail .
Aug 22 2012: My mind is open. Please convince me. Show me what YOUR religion has done to contribute to science in the last 10 years. Perhaps all the fake-science sites have left me with a mistaken view.Aug 22 2012: I'm not sure why you're asking me that question , because I said that religion is searching for truth ? But a thing to be for the truth do not have necessarily to contribute to the system of science .
- 0
What my religion has done ? Encourage the people to be moral persons , to be wise people ........ I'm not sure how much it developed the people thinking but on the moral side , on the side of living right my religion is a pinnacle of good .Aug 20 2012: Science is a religion like bald is a hairstyle. (The same is true of atheism. Neither satisfies what is the most implication of the word "religion": a system of organizing and directing the actions of people based on perceived truths about the supernatural.)
There is a tiny connection between science and religion, in that there is some belief behind each (for science it is that our natural senses observe the universe, for religion it is very very many more assumptions), but they are hardly the same thing.
Similarly, 'bald' glancingly involves hair, but it is certainly not an arrangement of hair.
To say otherwise of 'bald' is to diminish the meaning of the word 'hairstyle'.
To say otherwise of 'science' is to diminish the meaning of the word 'religion'.
If you are twisting meanings, you may as well say that science is a cantaloupe.
Aug 21 2012: My favourite is atheism is as much a religion as not playing tennis is a sport.Aug 20 2012: Nicole,
Science does not say that God does not exist. Science doesn't have enough information to make such a broad sweeping statement. But belief in God and belief in a religion are two different animals. One is a personal conviction the other is a club of sorts.
From personal experience, when you find yourself in a life threatening position where you've lost all control of the situation and you believe you are not going to make it, you will call on God as a last resort, if not the first; even if you spent a lifetime not believing in a God. It's just what humans do. I guess, because life is so hard at times and such situation are so common, it helps to propagate the idea of God.
Once, I borrowed my son's back pack and my Rx fell out inside when I failed to tighten the lid carefully. He and I ended up in a school run program for parents and child.
It was very interesting. One of the things we did was to first, blindfold the children who were then led around by their parent, We repeated the experience after changing roles.
Another thing we did was the children were lined up, the parent blindfolded and they had to go find their child. I was dumbfounded by how many parents were able to find their own child, including me. My child also picked me out under the same blind folded conditions. Very humbling experience, hard to explain with science but may have something to do with a feeling called love.
We don't know what love is but we know it when we feel it. It can't be weighed, touched and it doesn't seem to take up space. But it feels very real.
In scientific terms we could say it really doesn't exist at all except in our minds. But it sure feels real to me.
The important thing is, keep an open mind.
Roy Bourque
Aug 20 2012: Nicole,
- +2
Religion sees the world in associations. It is all based on metaphors, parables, symbolism, myths, etc. It all stems from right brain functions.
Science sees the world in logical analogy. It is built on mathematical models that seek to understand the structure of matter; quantum fields > electrons, proton, neutrons > atoms > molecules > cells > organic systems > organisms > ecology > solar systems > galactic systems > universe. From the microscopic to the macroscopic, there is a pattern of upward progression called evolution. It is all based on left brain functions.
Over 100 years ago, the word "Theology" was based on two branches; natural (knowledge of God through nature and reason) and revealed (knowledge of God through intuitive revelation). The Catholic church divorced itself from science after its attack on Galileo. Since then, the definition of theology has been revised to exclude any reference to nature and reason. If this were not so, science would be very much a part of religion. The Catholic church saw to it that it wasn't. Since then, it has stagnated and taken on misconceptions that are based on literal interpretations of words that hold deep esoteric meaning. Something needs to change. What we call religion today would cause ancient mystics to turn over in their grave.
According to what I read, science deals with the physical universe, what can be seen. This accounts for about 4% of the known universe. If you knew everything that science could teach, you'd have 96% unaccounted for.
The atheist says life doesn't go on after death because you can't prove it. Neither can you disprove it. If I had to make a choice, why would I choose non-existence over existence? It all stems from what organized religions teach about origins and the afterlife. My choice is that we get to continue what we started, not just cease to exist, end of story. If my death is the end of all my awareness, then why bother making sacrifices. I know it isn't.Aug 31 2012: This is quite an intricate topic. I haven't read all of the comments in this thread, but the ones that I have seen have been incredibly well articulated and respectful. It is a great topic.
Overall, I do not think that science as a subject should be considered a religion. Empirical data and evidence for scientific theories are very different than a theological doctrine. In this sense science is not a religion.
On the other hand, sometimes people develop a philosophical/theological framework based on science. This sort of idea stresses logical reasoning and experimentation. Sometimes however people falsely extend the reaches of science into philosophical/theological realms. For example, science has proven a possible way for humanity to develop through evolution. Some people extend this to mean that no sort of deity exists, but that is an over extension of what science really says. This takes a sort of theological approach that is often associated with, but not really science. When people extend science into a theological realm, science does gain some religious qualities. Ironically though, when people do extend science into theological realm, it is not science at all; it is faith.
Doug White
Aug 27 2012: Stewart, there are a lot of really great science books out there aimed at non-scientists, by the likes of Brian Greene, David Deustch, etc. (I particularly recommend Deustch's "The Beginning of Infinity") and if you pick a few of them up you will see what I am saying. Our theories, and our knowledge, are always moving toward 'right', but they never quite get there. When someone says they are 'wrong' what we really mean is that they still have wrong elements to them. Theories are still useful when they are not 100% right, as long as they make good predictions and can not be easily replaced with different theories that produce the same results. They help us move toward a more complete understanding of the universe (never fully complete, but more complete), and they can be guides to our actions, helping us to be more successful in achieving our goals. Since we are discussing how religion and science are similar/different, I thought it was important to point out this one major difference.
- +1
Aug 27 2012: Thanks for clarifying, but wrong still seems to be a bad word to use, it becomes an instant quote mine for those who wish to argue against science. It just seems better to say "has room for improvement" instead of wrong.
Gabo Moreno
Aug 27 2012: You guys might enjoy reading this piece by Assimov:
- +2
Aug 27 2012: That was actually pretty good thanks GaboAug 26 2012: I have believed for well over a decade science is a religion. It is as any other religion a way of defining the undefined world around us. Science as any religion gives explanation for the way things are. The perspective of the beholders is contrived based on their beliefs. The largest differentiation of science from many other religions is that the creation of 'life' is not defined, for there has yet to be logical proof of the existence of a 'creator' or creators. Science allows believers to believe in other religions. Yet still has governing bodies to argue the existence of religious deities. One of the greatest attractions of science is that it allows people to play the role of gods, by many other religions standards. As far as I am concerned the closest thing to a 'god' science has is 'logic'. Logic helps us explain why things are the way they are. Like a god, logic is maybe only a story we have told ourselves so our world makes sense. In the name of god one may kill, in the name of science one may kill. In either god or science one finds answers to age old questions. If one believes in science as 'Truthful' they have faith. If you believe in the writings of past teachers, you can find answers and perform magical things. Science is a religion that evolves at a faster pace than others. For science does not have have a governing set of rules per say. Science for many, allows for the greatest pursuits of enlightenment. Science like any other religion states 'Truths'. However exactly how limited in depth are these truths, and what if we find out 2000 years from now most of the science did not take into account important other truths. In that event science 'may' come to the conclusion there is a creative force behind everything. Would that make other religions in today's age correct, and science the weaker belief system? For scientists disregarded what are in the future, 'laws' of existence. Such as one must respect the laws of 'Mother Nature'.
Aug 26 2012: You really get it. That thrills me. The way you write almost hints at the possibility that you might be interested in Quantum Physics or Theoretical Physics. If you're not, I think it would be well-worth your time to learn as much as you can. As humans, we're curious about what makes things work. The quantum world controls and dictates what we see with the "naked eye."Aug 26 2012: Nicely done. Except that I might cast logic in a different role: logic is one of the tools we use in order to know god's thoughts.
Theistic religions hold that god(s) with freedom of action and sometimes prickly personalities are the reason things happen (Apollo makes the Sun rise, etc.) Science dispels such mysteries, often revealing others. And the search goes on...
What differentiates science from theistic religions is, in my opinion, progress.
Dan F
Aug 26 2012: Hi Nicole,
- +1
This question implies that science is not as remote from faith as some of us consider it to be. That, in fact, there is a faith component to science which some of us may be blind to recognizing, because we assume too much about what we think we know.
You have cleverly taken a swipe at science by suggesting it does not have a corner on what is actually "going on" any more than any other belief system does. You are actually expressing what many faithful people feel and choose to believe, despite evidence, despite anything, despite everything.
Here's my two cents. Don't regret getting involved in the middle of something where the fur flies. My experience has been that the truth has a way of creeping up on those of us that are engaged in life and somewhat receptive to the elephants that may be in the room. It may not mean you will be any happier, but you will be richer by far.
Nicole Small
Aug 26 2012: I believe you've got it. I was actually not as afraid of the "fur flying" as I was of being officially discharged from the site after less than a week as a new member. I LOVE TED Talks, but I still wasn't sure of what to expect as far as etiquette. Thanks so much for your kind words.I have a deep interest in the quantum world and I think it would benefit us all if more people learned about the quantum world as a society. When Atoms were first discovered, the scientific community became overwhelmingly interested in all the possibilities. Later, they discovered that the Atom was made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which made sense and followed the same laws of physics that we observed in "nature." After that they had to "dig out" and label the properties of those particles. It was then that this field began to hint at something far more complex than our minds were prepared to comprehend. We found that unlike the electron, the protons and neutrons were comprised of even tinier "matter." They later discovered particles like muons, quarks and bosons/gauge bosons. I can see why a lot of people threw their hands up- especially the popular philosophies. I think that once we've located all of the fundamental particles that don't break down any further, we'll look at it on a graph and see that there's is a heirarchy and the model would look like an inverted pyramid. The end result could be photon-related at the top and then come out the other end (based on information embedded in the photonic particles.) That graph will resemble the Big Bang ocurring on a quantum level. These pyramid (or hourglass) shapes in a lattice model might indicate that there are other dimensions who share the same light source as ours. If you took two hourglass shapes and made a "cross," the big picture would look like a square, but in the center, you get one shared Bang that spreads in four directions; creating multiple dimensions, maybe?
- +1
-Thanks for your time.
Dan F
Aug 26 2012: Hi again,
- 0
You appear to seek new knowledge and a better a understanding of the physical world and for that matter the limitations of what has been determined and discovered. You are an explorer. I think you are an asset to TED.
Another comment, if I may. Just as someone is not entitled to their own facts, nor are they entitled to their own definition of a word. It is more honest to explain how you differ on how a term is defined and perceived by expressing yourself utilizing specific words that effectively make your argument or point. Actually, the tactic of using a word out of context or specified use to make a point is not uncommon, I just personally think it is pandering to emotions over substance.
Anyway stay active and don't be reluctant to dissect things in your own mind. It's what personal growth is all about and will continue to make you more and more interesting.
Aug 26 2012: I agree with you that someone shouldn't "pander," but I'd like it to be known that it was never my intention (which is why I pulled my opening statement.) I wasn't prepared for the overwhelming and passionate responses. I don't participate in socializing with people much at all. About 90% of my social interactions have been little more that "small-talk" with "acquaintances." I'm admittedly "out-of-touch" and actually felt bad about how I caused so many reactions. Another part of me, however, decided to use the information I gained from this experience to get a better understanding of people without being forced to speak face-to-face.
Thang Tran
Aug 25 2012: If science were to be considered a religion then would religions also be considered science? This isn't a rhetorical question. I am really asking that.
- +1
Answer: No, science does not reflect the definition of religiosity. The two are clearly distinct because of their axioms and practical use. Science reflects the axioms of materialism and predictability whereas Religion rests axioms on dogma and belief, whichever it may be. In practice, religion is used as a cultural and community creation tool, whereas science has practically been used everywhere to be productive. Science cannot be considered a religion.


text:
Login below to access your powerful Homes.com tools.
Not a member yet?
Sign up today!
Recently asked questions in Missouri. More Q&A
I am looking for a home that has a casita, guest house or apartment over ga... 1 answers
What is the average cost to build a home in Foley, MO. 63347? 1 answers
My credit score is 540, Need a home loan. Can anyone help? 0 answers
Renting a home in California, Missouri is easier than you think with Homes.com. Search 0 California rental homes, condos, apartments for rent in California, Missouri, and much more. Make an informed decision with our comprehensive California school data, neighborhood information, and home values in California, MO. Homes.com has everything you need but the house keys.
Save this search today. Get alerts when new listings hit the market in your search.


text:
You are a fan of wandering halo ? Come to discover the best forums wandering halo on the internet and share your experience with a community fan of wandering halo . You can also build a forum wandering halo and create your online discussion.
Free forum : A Bungie.net Halo Roleplay
free, forum, what, soldier, you?, (halo, roleplay), bungie, #halo, roleplay, videogame, games, good, awesome, friends, role, play, story, excitement, reach, text, characters
Gulchtopia, a Halo Reach City RP.
#halo, gulchtopia, reach
Gaming Community or Warfare Gamers
warfare, #halo, battlefield, call, duty, games, reach, odst, first, person, shooter, black, cod4
Free forum : A forum meant for discussions of all sorts.
free, mystic, forum, games, anime, dragon, ball, inuyasha, fullmetal, alchemist, full, trigun, hellsing, bleach, final, emblem, call, duty, #halo, fantasy, fire, video, street, fighter
Has your Spartan got a story? Your Elite got a history? Share it here in our Halo database! Here you can post stories and create tales and vent your creativity of the Halo Universe!
The official Forum for Augustine: Despondent and other projects like Slender: Darkplaces and Zombie Shootout. Other projects and developers welcome!
free, forum, augustine, official, zombie, shootout, game, development, revamped, #halo, inspired, mexicouger, tevin, dahl, supermario641996, coding, quake, darkplaces, help, community


text:
While on paper our Boulevard Bruiser ("Ground & Pound," October '09) seemed well at home in the upper rpm. A closer look revealed a less-than satisfactory issue with valve float and subsequently a loss in power. It's been known that the more cubic inches the more difficult it is to spin that reciprocating mass at high rpm. Yet, with the availability of off-the-shelf items such as lightweight and higher tolerance valvetrain components, the ability to wring out even more power is also available with the right combination.
By 5,700 rpm the 496ci big-block was still making great street power but by 5,800 rpm we saw a dip and by 6,000 rpm it had all but fallen on its face. On the surface, you may think that's not too shabby for 496 inches. However, our Comp hydraulic roller 243/257 duration 'stick with 0.570/0.554-inch lift (intake/exhaust) was rated for operation at 2,500-6,100 rpm and should still have been making power, especially with large 320cc RHS cylinder heads. As we examined the dyno graphs, a number of contributing factors were realized. The 496ci was not only suffering from valve float but also from a lifter that couldn't quite keep up with the combination. The culprit? We determined that a stiffer spring and higher tolerance lifter should cure what was occurring in the upper rpm band along with a possibly more rigid rocker arm. Valvesprings are one of the most critical and overlooked components in your engine. They must be matched to your cam in order for the engine to reach its full potential. It does absolutely no good to install a cam that will perform up to 8,000 rpm if you do not have the correct springs. Ultimately, a stiffer spring and lifter should allow the big-block to extend its power curve and once in the car, allow a higher rpm shift that would enable more time in its sweet spot. While on the dyno we were only expecting to clean up the valve float issue, we also found an extra 40 hp in the process and extended our reach by 600 rpm.
In order to make sure we weren't chasing any ghosts, we placed the 496ci back on the dyno, only this time we headed over to Westech Performance. We started by running the motor through the rpm and backed up each run for our baseline numbers. Since our original intention was to eliminate the valve float condition, our first line of defense would be to replace the rockers along with the other major valvetrain components. From there, we tested each individual modification and not only did we completely resolve the valve float condition, we extended our upper rpm capabilities by 600 rpm. In the end, we installed a new set of springs with titanium retainers and locks, including a fresh set of roller rockers and lifters. Read on as we document our findings and learn how the minor changes completely altered the characteristics of this big-block powerplant.
Quick Notes
What We Did
Installed a new set of stiffer springs and higher tolerance lifters to create a higher revving 496
Bottom Line
Pull the rpm longer to shift back into the powerband
Cost (Approx)