CompuServe Messages

Jon, >> My public school system was pretty typical for a suburban school system that served a largely middle-class area. The quality of the science courses I took was putrid.<< I grew up in the same type of situation! Even though I've had an interest in the sciences at an early age, it was never fostered by parents, or the education system. Now at 38, I feel a void that I need to work on. It goes back to the age old question of "What is the meaning of life?" Well, I read a good response to this from an atheist, "There is no meaning to life, per se; however, it is up to us to pump meaning into life on a daily basis!" Now, I'm not an atheist, but I agree with that statement 100%. >>The *only* reason I'm still interested in science is that I was and still am a voracious reader and thinker, and reading about science gives me things to stimulate that.<< We have a lot in common! That statement defines me exactly, which is why I'm a bit discontent right now. I enjoy the reading, but I want more! I want, in some way, to involved and I just haven't figured out how as of yet. Science books,shows, and items really stimulate my imagination and thinking. >>Critical thinking is a *part* of science.<< I agree and the only thing I stated, which was in it was in response to other statements I've receive, was that you don't need 3+ yrs of calc, chem, and physics to learn how to think critically. Some people seem to think that without hard science teaching in our school systems our nation will spawn a bunch of idiots. >>Science is a way of looking at the world.<< Exactly right! But a lot of people are not interested in this, and that does not make them all ignorant. Everybody has different interest and areas in which they are knowledgable. Science does not make or break a person, or even define them, is what my whole point was. >>As to your examples of "the Loch Ness monster and crop circles" — you might do well to pick others.<< >> At best the evidence in both cases is inconclusive.<< Not true, they just had a special on the Discovery channel( or Learning channel) about a month ago that had conclusive evidence against the crop circles. People were secretely filmed making them, and they were replicated by skeptics and scientist alike. Now for the Loch Ness monster read the Summer 1994 issue of SI, p 338. >>The only real reason either of those are considered 'proven' frauds is that orthodox 'scientists' who have themselves forgotten what science is all about have declared them frauds because they don't conform to current theory.<< This may be true to some extent, but there are a lot of scientist out there who do not conform to that definition and who are really interested in trying to educate the unscientific population. There is no scientific evidence to support the Loch Ness monster. >>Writers for the SI can cover it in whatever psychotalk they like: the reason at bottom is that people don't understand science, and we humans tend to fear what we don't understand.<< The point of SI is to educate the unscientific pop. Read the list of members inside the front cover of that mag. The many people responsible for that mag. have solid backgrounds in many areas of the sciences. Take care, gary