The recently activated Kepler Mission is already paying off great dividends. The deep space observatory has reportedly found up to 140 planets that may be habitable, Earth-like bodies. This is just after six weeks on the job.
These are but a part of over 700 new planets identified by the mission.
Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University and a scientist on the Kepler Mission, noted “The figures suggest our galaxy, the Milky Way [which has more than 100 billion stars] will contain 100 million habitable planets, and soon we will be identifying the first of them.”
What is most revealing for me is how programs like Kepler yield such fantastic results — an argument against the massive cuts imposed on NASA by the Obama Administration. These programs cost a tiny fraction of what we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like national parks, it appears that our most successful programs are the first to be cut by politicians because they lack a powerful lobby in Washington.
Source: Daily Mail
Elaine,
No, that’s not one of Gould’s I’ve read. He is good though.
AY,
Hey! Comic books are good food. And yes, I did hear about Harvey. Too bad. He was an interesting guy and he always just, I hate to say this, killed on Letterman.
I’m not sure what I did to TraitorB other than what I do to all true trolls. The words “pucker up” come to mind.
Buddha,
Know the big picture and reading comic books are two separate issues. And did you hear that Harvey Pekar died….the author of “American Spendor.”
So what did you do to TraitorB?
Buddha,
I read “Broca’s Brain” when I was all growed up. Did you ever read Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man?”
And thanks, Slarti!
Having a professional scientist complement me like that means a lot.
On those “what would I have done different days”, I’m usually an astronomer or astrophysicist.
Slarti,
I do like the big picture. As a kid, I read at least two copies of “Broca’s Brain” until the spines fell out of them. 😀
Buddha,
Nice. I tend to live on the pointy end of the spear, but you do the broad strokes really well. I especially liked the part about rules governing complex systems (since what I do involves figuring out the rules governing complex systems ;-)). And I totally agree about the negative effects of tribalism individually and the harm it does our society as a whole.
Personally, I find the notion of a watch without a maker comforting – knowing we’re not being graded on a set scale and that meaning is what we make it is very liberating to me.
Buddha said:
“Sad to say though, as usual, it is pearls before the porcine.”
No problem, I’m in the process of turning the porcine into a mean batch of BBQ ribs! 😉
(My dad made some ribs for dinner tonight – marinaded and cooked in the oven all afternoon then finished on the grill with BBQ sauce and indirect heat – and fresh Michigan sweet corn to go with it. Yum!)
{W(t)=C | b < t < (now)},
I liked the video. And yeah, I know that I'm kind of touchy about this stuff – I work with people who literally couldn't do their jobs if they didn't recognize the theory of evolution (cancer is one of the most obvious examples of evolution – you wont get very far in a lab doing experiments on cancer cells if you refuse to acknowledge the very thing that makes cancer hard to kill…).
Slarti,
Yes I did enjoy it.
Sad to say though, as usual, it is pearls before the porcine.
People locked in a mindset of needing a “controller” for the universe don’t realize that their anthropomorphic view is born of the conceit that “God made man in his own image”. That because they “have a mind” that the universe must “have a mind” is illogical as a formal matter, a fallacy of composition in addition to being an anthropomorphism.
The idea that the universe is a watch without a maker scares them. The idea that the organizer of the universe is amoral, limited, a historically constrained process such as natural selection means they are not the favorites – the special people – but merely a consequence of natural processes. And if they can’t be special, that means they can’t decide who is “the other”. “The other” that is required to fulfill that dark evolutionary baggage that is the desire to oppress others to satisfy their own innate feelings of inferiority. They are victims of psychology that evolved on the Savannah to encourage tribal grouping as an exclusionary survival mechanisms.
They fail to see, or refuse in most cases, evolution and natural selection for what they are: rules governing complex systems. Some might simply say God is nothing more than rules governing complex systems for after all, what is a controller but the definer of rules?
The ego locked people are therefore incapable of using proper formalistic logic to see beyond their specific let alone our pan-species constraints to find solutions for problems, but especially when those solutions would require they give up outmoded tribalism (which is killing our species). They cannot comprehend that in order for the species to survive we need to consciously reject that kind of exclusionary behavior. No one is special. No one is “Chosen”. All of the human species lives on a spec of dust in relation to the cosmos. Special? Not really.
We could all die today and the majority of the universe would never miss our existence. Science tells us that as a species we are facing problems on a global scale that could (and will) kill us all absent unified action to correct the damage we are doing to the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. These are facts.
Another fact is that aside from a few really grim scenarios, we can’t even really destroy the planet. Sure, we can rather easily destroy a lot of life including all of human life, but left to its own devices – the natural processes science looks for and quantifies – the Earth would recover just fine without us. It has survived at least five previous mass extinctions. It’ll likely survive the one we bring upon ourselves.
But instead of realizing that we are all passengers on the spaceship Earth, the ship is in trouble and we could all die if we don’t start cooperating instead of competing, it’s far more important a priority to them to seek out and punish those darn homosexuals or heretics (or whatever) and/or try to impose their illogically derived religious dogma on to a secular government when over time history shows us that religious dogma of all flavors have killed more people than cancer by far.
All because their egos needs the massage.
Tribalism is outmoded. Fundamentalism is nothing more than tribalism run amok: a mental illness. A mutated psychological remnant that tells people “I’m special” when all the evidence points to no one being more special than anyone else.
guys…gee whiz, chill!
Slart: I believe the Bible is always correct, including when it and science disagree. But I don’t read it FOR the science, I read it for my spiritual edification and enjoy it when science confirms it.
Now to the funny stuff.
I said:
“If you believe in evolution then you have no justification to request that I trust the scientific method or empiricism because what do they matter when you and I are merely a bundle of chemicals bumping into each other mindlessly and randomly without a knowable purpose?”
and you replied:
“You know this is some hardcore christian bigotry here…”
It is so cute when you call using logic bigotry. You insist we use logic then call me a bigot when I do.
The truth is if one believes in evolution then there is no reason why anything, science, morality, or law has to be true or the truth.
It’s all just random bumping about the universe!
LOLOLOLOL
Mommy, Group Tootie Inc called me a bundle of random and pointless chemicals in a meaningless existence…..whaaa…whaa…whaaa
sniff…
LOL
Tootie said:
Yet you seem to believe that when you perceive science and the bible to be in conflict the bible is correct. That is an unacceptable scientific argument. Nothing says your arguments have to be scientific, but if they aren’t then your use of the technology that is the result of science is hypocritical and you show that accusations that you are anti-science are correct.
Certainly most Christians and many scientists see no problem reconciling the bible with science. The problem is with creationists and biblical literalists who see a conflict and decide that they can pick and choose what aspects of science that they want to believe – science doesn’t work that way.
I view this to be little more than mental masturbation – I’ve got no problem with it, but you should probably keep it private. Analogies like this add absolutely nothing to scientific understanding. (I don’t think that they add to biblical understanding, either.) As I said in a previous post, if you want to see how modern physics and a religious worldview can mesh into a seamless whole, check out ‘The Tao of Physics’ (‘The Dancing Wu Li Masters’ is good, too) – but they aren’t talking about mainstream Christianity (or your personal perversion of it) and both books are philosophical, not scientific.
You can view science in any context you wish, but you can’t ignore empirical evidence just because it doesn’t fit your framework.
You know this is some hardcore christian bigotry here – just because I don’t justify my existence or base my morality on your narrow-minded, pathetic version of Christianity you assume that I am immoral and have no justification. You can consider science untrustworthy if you want (unless you then live like the Amish you’ll be a hypocrite, however) but the scientific method has been the most successful tool for understanding the universe ever invented by humanity (if religion is a club made out of the thighbone of an antelope, then science is the entire arsenal of the US military). I have never urged you to trust the scientific method or empiricism for any reason whatsoever (although I trust them and their track record is outstanding – especially when compared to religion). The problem arises when you start trying to tell science what it should say – then you make yourself the enemy of science, the cancer trying to destroy it from within and engage in the kind of ignorant, superstitious thinking that our society must move beyond if we want to handle the challenges with which we are faced.
I trust empiricism because it works. If you can show me that you have a better understanding of how the universe works than science has given us, I’ll look at your evidence, but until you can show me proof I’ll stick with a scientific worldview.
Do you have any idea how ignorant this line of reasoning makes you sound?
The justification for using empiricism is simply that it works better for helping us understand the universe than anything else we’ve found to date. And god didn’t invent it – Aristotle and a bunch of Muslim guys did.
If there is anything in science that you disagree with you are free to attempt to find a way to falsify it, but if you don’t have any evidence for your view don’t expect anyone to give you any credence. I think that rational people when presented with an explanation, shown the evidence supporting the explanation, and invited to give and test an alternate scientific hypothesis tend to give that argument more credibility than they do an argument backed up by something written by an ignorant tribesman thousands of years ago, but maybe that’s just me.
Um. God? Presumably no one could inherit the job of god unless she was dead (or retired). But don’t worry, since I don’t believe in god I wont use my divine powers to smite you for failing to worship me.
Buddha,
I hope you enjoyed it.
Oh I can’t wait to see this response.
Slart:
I don’t use the Bible to learn science. I never said I did.
The Bible teaches me about God and while it does there are things in it that harmonize with scientific discovery. It has applications to all areas of human interest: science, family, history, law, etc. Science and the Bible are very compatible, despite the disinformation spread by hate-mongering bibliophobes.
Hereen writes “Famed astronomer Robert Jastrow says: ‘The Hubble Law is one of the great discoveries in science: it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis.” This is how science and the Bible compliment one another.
Christians view science within a Biblical framework. You make that out to be bad. I figure that is because you are cranky.
If you believe in evolution then you have no justification to request that I trust the scientific method or empiricism because what do they matter when you and I are merely a bundle of chemicals bumping into each other mindlessly and randomly without a knowable purpose?
In other words, if you are an evolutionist, you are just making it up that it is necessary to trust empiricism because what we see (from the evolutionists viewpoint) is simply an accident anyway. Who needs to care about empiricism, we die anyway not matter what, and it was an accident we were here in the first place.
Empiricism is nothing much if all life is an evolutionary accident. We just need instinct then, like the lower critters and all this science is unnecessary.
Empiricism is important only if you believe God made the world intelligible, knowable, and understandable. And that is why the Bible is meaningful to creation scientists. It is the foundation for why they know they can know things.
If you are an evolutionist you cannot prove to me random bumping of things in the universe demands empiricism. You expect me just to believe you are right.
Well, who died and made you god?
Tootie,
I was working on a response to your comment, but the computer gods demanded it as a sacrifice, so I’ll sum it up thusly: What you said is a load of crap – when we’re trying to determine what the scientific method says about the universe we use empirical observations and falsifiable hypotheses, not scripture (and if you ‘stand on the bible’ and take that to be your ultimate source of truth then you are standing against science). If you want to see how modern science ‘harmonizes’ with religion, check out ‘The Tao of Physics’ (which pretty throughly explores how the worldviews espoused by eastern religions are in sync with our current ideas about how the universe works). If I have time later, I’ll reproduce more of my lost post…
Mike A.–
I minored in science when I was in college studying for my degree in teaching. I had courses in biology (two semesters), geology, genetics, weather and climate, earth science, physics, chemistry, nature studies, conservation. I’m a science buff. I take science seriously–not like the teachers and proponents of creationism. As a former educator, it troubles me to see so many people in America teaching children “Bible science”…teaching them that the Earth is just 6,000 years old…teaching them to be anti-evolution…and closing their minds to facts that don’t jive with scripture.
Anonymously Yours 1, July 28, 2010 at 10:48 am
Wootsy,
And that is why we shake with our right hands. The shield was carried in the left and the sword/hilt was in the right. We put our defense down when we do that, but carry the shield to clobber there ass when they offend us….
___________
that is cool, just a tad arrogant. I hope your clobbering is tempered with enough restraint to allow for the chasm of personal projections and misunderstanding to be crossed?
_____________
————–
CCD 1, July 28, 2010 at 10:49 am
Doesn’t anyone believe in a ‘Living G*d’ anymore???– Woosty’s still a Cat
Sure, “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience.” –Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Religious fundamentalist of every stripe are exempt from comprehending this perspective. Due to the fears they create and the control they need over others.
_______–
🙂
Gingerbaker:
Terrific drumming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fLn9Z1G_LE
Much thanks to the logic police, instructing at Res ipsa loquitur!
Doesn’t anyone believe in a ‘Living G*d’ anymore???– Woosty’s still a Cat
Sure, “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience.” –Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Religious fundamentalist of every stripe are exempt from comprehending this perspective. Due to the fears they create and the control they need over others.
Wootsy,
And that is why we shake with our right hands. The shield was carried in the left and the sword/hilt was in the right. We put our defense down when we do that, but carry the shield to clobber there ass when they offend us….
I disagree AY, I think quite the opposite!
It is hard to serve if you never come to a peace within yourself. People who don’t like themselves can be horribly hidden behind sheilds of arrogance.
even so, i have my moments…