Darwinist hypocrites really not concerned about good science education
As I have pointed out, there are good reasons for teaching Darwinism in the schools, e.g.: (1) knowing Darwinism is an important part of being a well-educated person and (2) some scientists need to know Darwinism in order to understand cladistic taxonomy and some scientific papers. However, by insisting that Darwinism be taught dogmatically, the Darwinists are increasing the risk that teachers, schools, school districts, and states will just try to avoid the controversy by teaching little or nothing about Darwinism.
Furthermore, students could become distrustful of scientists and disillusioned about science if the weaknesses of Darwinism are not taught or mentioned in public-school science courses. And scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while disbelieving all or some of the theory, in the same way that engineers use imaginary-number mathematics in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics while being aware that the mathematics has no intuitive connections to the physical systems.
Furthermore, students could become distrustful of scientists and disillusioned about science if the weaknesses of Darwinism are not taught or mentioned in public-school science courses. And scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while disbelieving all or some of the theory, in the same way that engineers use imaginary-number mathematics in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics while being aware that the mathematics has no intuitive connections to the physical systems.
Labels: Evolution controversy (2 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/01/2006 08:58:00 PM
16 Comments:
And Larry keeps lying.
>>>And scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while disbelieving all or some of the theory, in the same way that engineers use imaginary-number mathematics in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics while being aware that the mathematics has no intuitive connections to the physical systems.<<<
As an electrical engineer, I am quite aware that the use of complex numbers in circuit analysis has a direct, intuitive relation to the physical system. Stop lying, Larry. Just because you're too stupid to understand advanced trigonometry doesn't mean that I have to "disbelieve" basic AC circuit theory. I know how it works, why it works, and how it all relates to the actual physical system; I've even written a guide to the economic impact of the theory that two major utility companies distribute to their industrial clients.
And even though I am only trained as an eletrical engineer, I understand exactly why the Joukawski transformation (I think I misspelled that, sorry) works. I also, as part of that understanding, know it's potential weakness, which is why the cylinder has to be rotated.
As used in both these examples, complex math is merely a method of solving for x and y simultaneously. It's basic vector math.
The dimwit is still believing that if he repeats something that had been conclusively disproved over and over, that it will somehow become true.
Kevin Vicklund moaned,
>>>>Just because you're too stupid to understand advanced trigonometry doesn't mean that I have to "disbelieve" basic AC circuit theory. <<<<
You're the dumb one. We've been through this before. The impedance vector, for example, has a real component consisting of the DC resistance and an imaginary component that is a complicated calculated expression based on the capacitance, the inductance, and the AC frequency. There is absolutely no intuitive relationship to the physical parameters of the circuit.
> We've been through this before. <
And yet you still don't understand it.
> There is absolutely no intuitive relationship to the physical parameters of the circuit. <
For some people nothing is intuitive.
Larry(?), haven't you ever heard that if you are in a hole, stop digging?
Fake Dave said,
>>>>>>Trying to figure out where Larry(?) is coming from on this, it seems that he equates "imaginary" with "non-existent". <<<<<<
Wrong. It has nothing to do with "imaginary" numbers. What makes the impedance vector non-intuitive is that it is the sum of two orthogonal vectors of the magnitudes I described. There is nothing intuitive about the facts that the magnitude of the vector gives the ratio of the peak voltage to the peak current and that the vector's angle gives the phase angle between the voltage and current.
If you are not happy with that analogy, maybe you would prefer the Joukowski transformation of conformal mapping, where the aerodynamics of a rotating cylinder is used to determine the aerodynamics of wing airfoils.
Anyway, regardless of these analogies, my basic point holds --scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of the theory is untrue.
Fake Larry(?) said...
> What makes the impedance vector non-intuitive is that <
... is that you don't understand it.
> scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of the theory is untrue.<
True but a moot point seing that evolution is true.
>>>You're the dumb one. We've been through this before. The impedance vector, for example, has a real component consisting of the DC resistance and an imaginary component that is a complicated calculated expression based on the capacitance, the inductance, and the AC frequency. There is absolutely no intuitive relationship to the physical parameters of the circuit.<<<
Ignorant idiots shouldn't argue with certified experts. You're embarrassing yourself with your ignorance, Larry. You have completely misrepresented the nature of AC analysis. The real part of the impedance vector is rarely the DC resistance - in all but the simplest of AC circuits, the real component will be a complex computation involving all circuit elements. For example, a circuit that consists of a resistor in parallel with an inductor (hooked up to a source, of course) will have a DC resistance of 0. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Yet the real component of the impedance vector will be non-zero (nor will the real component be equal to the resistance of the resistor). And the real component of a circuit with a capacitor in series with a resistor will be non-zero, yet the circuit will have a DC resistance of infinity! (though the real component in this case will be the resistance of the resistor)
You see, in AC analysis, we take the impedance vectors of the individual components, and then calculate the overall impedance of the circuit, generally using the Series and Parallel equivalency theorems and Kirchoff's Laws.
The impedances of the three basic circuit elements are quite easy to calculate.
The impedance of a resistor has a positive real value that is equal to the DC resistance of the resistor. Thus:
Zr=R
The impedance of an inductor has a positive reactive value that is equal to the reactance of the inductor. The reactance of an inductor is proportional to the inductance and the frequency (I'll use w to represent a lower case omega). Thus:
Zl=jXl=jwL
The impedance of a capacitor has a negative reactive value that is equal to the reactance of the capacitor. The reactance of a capacitor is inversely proportional to the capacitance and frequency. Thus:
Zc=-jXc=-j/(wC)
Really. It's that simple. The complexity arises when you start combining various elements, and it's not any different if you're only using resistors. AC analysis is basically figuring out how to combine all those Z's. There's two major ways to combine circuit elements: series and parallel. A set of elements connected end-to-end is in series, a set connected side-by-side is in parallel. The impedance of a series circuit is very simple:
Z=Z1+Z2+Z3...
The impedance of a parallel circuit is a little bit tougher:
1/Z=1/Z1+1/Z2+1/Z3...
So if we have a resistor in series with an inductor, we get:
Z=Zr+Zl
Z=R+jXl
Since the frequency is the same throughout the circuit, we can leave it in R+jX format
Similarly for a resistor and capacitor in series:
Z=Zr+Zc
Z=R-jXc
Now for all three types in series:
Z=Zr+Zl+Zc
Z=R+jXl-jXc
Z=R+j(Xl-Xc)
How about two resistors, an inductor, and a capacitor:
Z=Zr1+Zr2+Zl+Zc
Z=R1+R2+jXl-jXc
Z=(R1+R2)+j(Xl-Xc)
Gee, now that's really complex and counter-intuitive. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Plus a little algebra as we treat j as a variable.
In general, if we throw multiples of the various types together in series, the resistive elements will add together and the reactive elements will add together.
I can hear Larry crowing now. "See, that proves what I said!" But we haven't yet looked at the parallel case.
I'll keep it simple and just look at one case: inductor and resistor in parallel (I'll just use X for Xl for simplicity).
1/Z=1/Zr+1/Zl
1/Z=Zl/ZrZl+Zr/ZrZl
Z=ZrZl/(Zr+Zl)
Z=RjX/(R+jX)
But we want it in the form R+jX, so we use the identity j*j=-1 and continue:
Z=jRX(R-jX)/(RR+XX)
Z=RXX/(RR+XX)+jRRX/(RR+XX)
As you can see, the real component of a circuit with parallel elements is just as complex to calculate as the reactive component. And the real component includes the value of the reactive element.
It's quite intuitive to assign values to components and then analyze the system based on the interaction of the components. Just because some of those components are dependent on a system-wide variable doesn't make it any less intuitive. So one would think that it has something to do with the use of imaginary numbers that has Larry all a-twitter.
>>>Wrong. It has nothing to do with "imaginary" numbers. What makes the impedance vector non-intuitive is that it is the sum of two orthogonal vectors of the magnitudes I described. There is nothing intuitive about the facts that the magnitude of the vector gives the ratio of the peak voltage to the peak current and that the vector's angle gives the phase angle between the voltage and current.<<<
Oh, really? Let's look at what how the three types of components react in an AC circuit. For now, we'll avoid math.
Voltage is proportional to current by the general form of Ohm's Law, V=IZ. The impedance of the system is intuitively the ratio of voltage to current.
A resistor simply resists the flow of current from one energy potential to another. Therefore, if we apply an AC voltage to a resistor, it is intuitive that the current varies in synch with the voltage. In the power industry, we call this unity.
An inductor resists change in current. Intuitively, we would expect the current to trail the voltage, creating a phase angle. In the industry, we call this condition lagging.
A capacitor resists change in voltage. If resistance to change in current causes current to trail voltage, then intuitively, resistance to change in voltage must cause voltage to trail current. Put another way, current will range ahead of voltage, creating a phase angle. In the industry, we call this leading.
So, without resorting to math, we can say that a resistor doesn't cause any phase angle, an inductor causes a lagging phase angle, and a capacitor causes a leading phase angle. So let's figure out what happens when we mix components. For simplicity, let's assume all components are in series - meaning resistors affect only the real component of impedance and capacitors and inductors only affect the reactive component.
A resistor will force current towards being in synch with voltage, whereas an inductor forces current to lag voltage. Since both contribute to the current, we expect that they will both have an impact on the magnitude of the current and on the resultant phase angle. If the circuit is more resistive, we would expect the resistor to have a bigger effect - meaning the magnitude of the current should be determined more by the resistor, and the phase angle should be closer to unity than to whatever phase angle the inductor would induce. If the circuit is more reactive, the magnitude of the current should be dominated by the inductor's contribution, and the phase angle should approach the angle induced by the inductor. If they are equal in magnitude, they should equally contribute to the magnitude of the current, and the phase angle should split the difference.
For a resistor and a capacitor, the same analysis holds true, except that the phase angle is leading, not lagging.
Now, when we combine an inductor and a capacitor, we have the two elements working at cross-purposes, since one is trying to cause the current to lag, while the other is causing the current to lead. So we have a tug of war situation going on here. Whichever element has a larger reactance will rule the field. So we expect the magnitude of the current to be determined by the difference in the reactances, and the phase angle to be determined by whichever element has the greatest contribution to the impedance.
Throw in a resistor, and you first figure out which of the opposing reactances wins out, and then compare to the resistor as above.
Seems quite intuitive to me. Think about it like this. You've got an object to which several ropes are attached. Someone pulls on a rope with a certain force in one direction, while another person pulls on a different rope in a different direction with a different force, and so on. Which way is the object going to move?
If people want, I can demonstrate the math that proves the above thought experiment.
> You're embarrassing yourself with your ignorance, Larry. <
What is new?
Kevin wheezed,
>>>>> The real part of the impedance vector is rarely the DC resistance - in all but the simplest of AC circuits, the real component will be a complex computation involving all circuit elements. <<<<<<
OK, then let's just talk about the simplest AC circuits. In the simplest AC circuits, there is no intuitive relationship between the impedance vector and the physical parameters of the circuits. Actually, you are making things even more non-intuitive by talking about more complicated AC circuits.
Kevin, like a typical Darwinist, does not believe in the "K.I.S.S." (keep it simple, stupid) principle -- or as Einstein put, "things should be a simple as possible, but no simpler." Like a typical Darwinist, Kevin believes in introducing a lot of obfuscating details into discussions.
>>>>> An inductor resists change in current. Intuitively, we would expect the current to trail the voltage, creating a phase angle.
A capacitor resists change in voltage. If resistance to change in current causes current to trail voltage, then intuitively, resistance to change in voltage must cause voltage to trail current. <<<<<<
Of course, the qualitative effects of capacitance and inductance in AC circuits are intuitive. But my point was that the use of complex-number math to calculate the magnitudes of those effects is not intuitive, particularly in circuits that combine resistance, inductance, and capacitance.
Anyway, my point is that it is not necessary to brainwash future scientists into believing that Darwinism is true, because scientists can always use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while perceiving it as sort of a hokey thing.
> In the simplest AC circuits, there is no intuitive relationship between the impedance vector and the physical parameters of the circuits. <
You seem totally incapable of understanding what has repeatedly been presented to you.
> Kevin, like a typical Darwinist, does not believe in the "K.I.S.S." (keep it simple, stupid) principle -- or as Einstein put, "things should be a simple as possible, but no simpler." <
As usual you don't understand what you quote. What exactly do you believe Einstein meant by but no simpler?
> Like a typical Darwinist, Kevin believes in introducing a lot of obfuscating details into discussions. <
I missed them. All I saw was explanatory details.
> But my point was that the use of complex-number math to calculate the magnitudes of those effects is not intuitive, particularly in circuits that combine resistance, inductance, and capacitance. <
It quite intuitive if you understand complex numbers, particularly in circuits that combine resistance, inductance, and capacitance.
> Anyway, my point is that it is not necessary to brainwash future scientists into believing that Darwinism is true <
Because it can be shown with good evidence that it is true.
In order to become a registered engineer, which Larry(?) once was before he became demented and lost his registration, one of the requirements is that you must have letters of recommendation from three other registered engineers. I have to confess that I was one of the three although the twit now claims that he has never heard of me. I believe that his brother Dave was one of the others. This is the Dave whom he now brands as a phony while at the same time calling him and demanding that he stop posting.
I believe that Dave and I made mistakes. Clearly Larry(?) is incapable of engineering thought. At least I can rest knowing that he has lost his registration.
> Not as I recall. I would think that relatives would be ineligible in any event. <
Good grief! There is nobody known with which I can share the blame?
This is a bit off-topic for this thread, but I thought I'd better point it out to Larry so he can garble the results right away. There is a study that surveyed college professors (defined as full-time faculty teaching in degree-granting programs) on religion. This includes community colleges, 4-year universities, non-elite PhD-granting universities, and elite PhD-granting universities (the top 50 PhD-granting universities are considered elite). 2/3 of the professors were randomly chosen from the top 20 diciplines (in terms of number of degrees awarded in 2004); the other third were randomly chosen from all degree-granting disciplines.
So why is Larry going to be interested? One of the top 20 disciplines is biology, and one of the questions asked was about whether ID is science. Here is the relevant paragraph from the paper:
We also asked respondents to weigh in on the controversy over intelligent design. Our question asked respondents how much they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “The theory of intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution.” Overall, 84.1 percent of professors surveyed disagreed with the statement, with 75.3 percent registering strong disagreement. Agreement was strongest at community colleges, where 30.6 percent of professors see intelligent design as a serious scientific alternative, and weakest at elite doctoral universities, where just 5.6 percent of professors do.
Unfortunately, they don't give a breakdown by discipline, but there is hope. This is just a working paper, and from their comments in the introduction, it seems likely they will release the complete data with the full report.
Some things to note. The paragraph I quoted applies to all disciplines. Although the paper didn't list all of the top 20 disiplines, about half of them were mentioned, and biology was the only natural science listed. Most of the listed disciplines were in areas of social science. I'll try to see if I can find out the full list. the 15.9% of all professors that didn't disagree with the statement includes those that were neutral, so the percent that do think that ID is science will be less than 15.9%.
My gut feeling is that almost all of the professors that think ID is science will be in non-natural science disciplines, and the only professors teaching biology that think ID is science will be found in community colleges (allowing for a maverick in the other categories).
Good post as usual, Kevin. The troll will misinterpret it as usual.
I checke dout the National Center for Education Statistics, and here is a list of the top 20 associates and bachelor degrees awarded in 2004. I bolded "social sciences and history" because it is broken out (see italics) and I bolded "Multidisciplinary" because I wasn't sure that should count. As a result, I added the next three categories (in italics) to be complete. While I know the paper used NCES for some of their statistics, Nursing is not listed anywhere as a discipline, yet the paper lists it as a top 20 discilpine, just Health Professions (and related). Similarly, the paper lists Mechanical Engineering specifically, as opposed to listing Eningeering in general like the NCES, so the categories here probably do not completely correspond to the categories in the paper.
Business 413,453
Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities 269,756
Health professions and related clinical sciences 180,142
Social sciences and history 156,602
Social sciences 126,424
Education 118,743
Computer and information sciences 101,333
Visual and performing arts 101,130
Psychology 83,985
Communications, journalism, and related programs 73,412
Engineering 66,295
Biological and biomedical sciences 62,965
English language and literature/letters 54,812
Engineering technologies 51,306
Security and protective services 48,748
Multi/interdisciplinary studies 43,956
History 30,178
Agriculture and natural resources 29,118
Family and consumer sciences 28,650
Public administration and social service professions 24,280
Parks, recreation, leisure and fitness studies 23,087
Physical sciences and science technologies 20,659
Foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics 18,801
Biology doesn't make the top ten, and it i questionable whether the other natural sciences qualify in the top 20.
Kevn Vicklund said ( 11-09-06 @ 6:03:39 AM ) --
>>>>>So why is Larry going to be interested? One of the top 20 disciplines is biology, and one of the questions asked was about whether ID is science. <<<<<<
I still have not seen any opinion data for biologists in particular. And the sample of biologists in the poll may be too small to be statistically significant.
This poll is being discussed on Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent.
A lot of guys on here need to get layed, oh, and get over themselves.
It would also help if somebody just got out a damned ruler and we could resolve this once and for all.
Post a Comment
<< Home