Biology professor draws fire for not recommending creationist students

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I should say not! Everyone knows the universe is only 6000 years old.

Holy cow! That young? She told me was older than that!


Cheers

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Holy cow! That young? She told me was older than that!


Cheers

In my opinion she doesn't look a day over 4000.

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk


In my opinion she doesn't look a day over 4000.

That's what I thought, too! But it was dark and I was wearing beer goggles.

Boy, I'm glad I've had a vasectomy.

Cheers,

[Ceinwyn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hazelip


Because people who disagree with fundies are still supposed to make them feel comfortable expressing these views all the time, everywhere they go. We aren't supposed to be able to express our views, founded in fact, critical thought, logic, and observation, because it makes them uncomfortable.

Their comfort and peace of mind is obviously more important than our search for scientific truth...

I think this is a really good point that hasn't been looked at enough. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets sick and tired of fundies coming up to me in the mall, calling me on the phone, knocking on my door then I find myself APOLOGIZING for not buying into their ridiculous beliefs.

From now on, I'm gonna look at it this way: they'll get their peace of mind in heaven, and I'll get mine when I wordlessly slam the door shut.

And as for the actual topic: the professor is totally within his rights to set rules for any recommendation he might give. If the poor bunny can't wrap his head around the scientific principle, he'd best go back to searching for Noah's Ark or whatever the hell creationists are doing these days.

[heath]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

It is loaded in that Science has a clear answer to the question. Would a geophysics professor be justified in refusing a letter to a student who believed in a Flat Earth, and wanted to study geophysics at the graduate level?

Funny. When I worked in seismic processing I knew a guy that was a sedimentologist and a creationist. He got over the obvious paradox by being as thick as a plank.

[heath]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


It is the duty of a professor of physics to not recommend a physics student who refuses to accept relativity. Or a cosmology student who claims the universe is only 11,000 years old. Or a geologist who claims radio-dating is farcical. They haven't learned the material. They don't understand the basic scientific approach. It is equally the duty of any professor to hear out a student in any of these areas who refutes any of these fundamentals with clear, evidence-based reasoning.

And I knew a very good physicst when at uni that was also a creationist. These people have no problem practicing what they don't believe in. There is nothing to say this kid couldn't be a perfectly competent doctor and still not believe in evolution. Sad perhaps, but true.

I don't think the prof should be sanctioned but I also think he is being a tad pedantic. your belief does not necessarily make you incapable of practicing something that is not in line with your belief. The threat is that they jump through the hoops while studying jsut to pass, then throw it away when they get to practice. Requires constant re-testing/supervision/evaluation of practicing medical types. This should be the norm anyway IMO.

Quote:

Originally posted by heath
I don't think the prof should be sanctioned but I also think he is being a tad pedantic. your belief does not necessarily make you incapable of practicing something that is not in line with your belief. The threat is that they jump through the hoops while studying jsut to pass, then throw it away when they get to practice. Requires constant re-testing/supervision/evaluation of practicing medical types. This should be the norm anyway IMO.

But Dr. Dini is not assessing students for medical practice. He is assessing them for their understanding of biology. How, in good conscience, can he say Johnny grasps the material very well if, in fact, Johnny rejects the unifying principle of biology?

He can't. It would be a dereliction of his duty.

Cheers,

[heath]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


But Dr. Dini is not assessing students for medical practice. He is assessing them for their understanding of biology. How, in good conscience, can he say Johnny grasps the material very well if, in fact, Johnny rejects the unifying principle of biology?

He can't. It would be a dereliction of his duty.

Cheers,

No.

Dereliction of duty would be to pass somebody who couldn't do the course work (and therefore the job). Which is why he doesn't give personal recomendations to ppl that don't buy into evolutoin but would still pass the student if they met the criteria (must pass actually).

I'm not disagreeing with his personal choice, I just say that belief doesn't necessarily make people unable to do their job (result as opposed to belief).

What gets me is this student didn't even sit the course, so didn't even come close to being rejected for a recomendation. He's bound to have the case thrown out right?

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by heath


No.

Dereliction of duty would be to pass somebody who couldn't do the course work (and therefore the job). Which is why he doesn't give personal recomendations to ppl that don't buy into evolutoin but would still pass the student if they met the criteria (must pass actually).

I'm not disagreeing with his personal choice, I just say that belief doesn't necessarily make people unable to do their job (result as opposed to belief).

What gets me is this student didn't even sit the course, so didn't even come close to being rejected for a recomendation. He's bound to have the case thrown out right?

Complete and utter nonsense.

2+2=4. 2+2 does not equal 47 no matter what your religious beliefs.

His recommendations are based on the students understanding of biology and if he cannot grasp the basics he is a poor biologist and deserves no recommendation.

The very basis of science is to objectively evaluate the evidence. To reject evidence because it does not fit one's personal beliefs is the epitome of bad science.

If you believe that 2+2=47 for religious reasons and you ask someone to recommend you for a religious position then by all means you should be recommended for that religious position due to your steadfast devotion to nonsense.

If, however, you believe that 2+2=47 for religious reasons and you ask some to recommend you for a mathematics position then by all means you should be rejected.

Why?

Because 2+2=4.

If you want to study science then study evidence and proofs.

If you want to ignore evidence and proofs then you have no business in any scientific field and you should become a priest.

[arcticpenguin]

Happy Darwin Day!

[heath]

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk


Complete and utter nonsense.

2+2=4. 2+2 does not equal 47 no matter what your religious beliefs.

His recommendations are based on the students understanding of biology and if he cannot grasp the basics he is a poor biologist and deserves no recommendation.

The very basis of science is to objectively evaluate the evidence. To reject evidence because it does not fit one's personal beliefs is the epitome of bad science.

If you believe that 2+2=47 for religious reasons and you ask someone to recommend you for a religious position then by all means you should be recommended for that religious position due to your steadfast devotion to nonsense.

If, however, you believe that 2+2=47 for religious reasons and you ask some to recommend you for a mathematics position then by all means you should be rejected.

Why?

Because 2+2=4.

If you want to study science then study evidence and proofs.

If you want to ignore evidence and proofs then you have no business in any scientific field and you should become a priest.

Nice rant. But still wrong.

If a plumber thinks fairies push the water through the pipes he can still be a damn good plumber.

Being a creationist does not make people bad doctors, bad physicists or bad geologists. Note I italicise necessarily in every one of my posts. Assuming creationists are intrinsically incompetent is wrong. In many cases you will find that these people only lack the ability to apply logic in this one facet of their lives and are not polarised to either ultra-rational or so irrational they see no reason ever.

By the standards you seem to hold a tiny fraction of the worlds population should be allowed to be scientists or doctors because they are wholely rational. Most people aren't. Get used to it.

[Occasional Chemist]

Quote:

Originally posted by heath

By the standards you seem to hold a tiny fraction of the worlds population should be allowed to be scientists or doctors because they are wholely rational.

But you do need to be rational about the field of science you're seeking a recommendation in - and that's what this thread is about.

[CurtC]

Quote:

heath wrote:
If a plumber thinks fairies push the water through the pipes he can still be a damn good plumber.

If the job description is to troubleshoot what might be going wrong with a complex water distribution system (analogous to a doctor), then someone who believes water is pushed through pipes by fairies would be incompetent.

[Blue Monk]

I disagree.

I never said being a creationist makes people bad doctors, bad physicists or bad geologists.

I am saying being a creationist does make people bad biologists because evolution is the very foundation of modern biology. There is no worse factor in any scientific endeavor that to ignore evidence that is specific to the study in question.

Believing Zeus controls the weather will not make you a bad biologist but it will make you a poor meteorologist.
Believing a tooth-ache is caused by demons does not make you a bad artist but it will make you a bad dentist.
Believing the Sun revolves around the Earth does not make you a bad plumber but it will make you a bad Astronomer.

Religious dogma is the antithesis of good science. No matter what the catholic churched believed and no matter what it says in the bible and no matter what Galileo is forced to 'confess' it will never change the scientific reality that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

Being a creationist in the field of biology proves that one is unwilling to accept the discipline that science requires to evaluate FACTS. To ignore FACTS due to one's preconceived notions is by definition bad science.

To ignore the facts that form the basis of mathematics will make a poor mathematician.
To ignore the facts that form the basis of carpentry will make a poor carpenter.
To ignore the facts that form the basis of biology will make a poor biologist. This man is to be recommended for a position based on his understanding of biology, not his personal religious dogma.

What are you saying? That all students of mathematics are judged on their competency based on whether or not they understand that 2+2=4 but Johnny should be exempt because his beliefs dictate that 2+2=47 even though that is mathematically incorrect?

Regardless of anyone's beliefs, 2+2=4, the earth revolves around the sun and the facts support evolution not creationism.

If you do not accept the fact that 2+2=4 then you should not receive a recommendation as a mathematician.
If you do not accept the fact that the earth revolves around the sun then you should not receive a recommendation as an astronomer.
If you do not accept the fact that 12 inches equals one foot then you should not reveive a recommendation as a carpenter.
If you do not accept the fact that the evidence supports evolution and not creationism then you should not receive a recommendation as a biologist.

[Dragonrock]

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I disagree.

I never said being a creationist makes people bad doctors, bad physicists or bad geologists.

I am saying being a creationist does make people bad biologists because evolution is the very foundation of modern biology. There is no worse factor in any scientific endeavor that to ignore evidence that is specific to the study in question.

Believing Zeus controls the weather will not make you a bad biologist but it will make you a poor meteorologist.
Believing a tooth-ache is caused by demons does not make you a bad artist but it will make you a bad dentist.
Believing the Sun revolves around the Earth does not make you a bad plumber but it will make you a bad Astronomer.

Religious dogma is the antithesis of good science. No matter what the catholic churched believed and no matter what it says in the bible and no matter what Galileo is forced to 'confess' it will never change the scientific reality that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

Being a creationist in the field of biology proves that one is unwilling to accept the discipline that science requires to evaluate FACTS. To ignore FACTS due to one's preconceived notions is by definition bad science.

To ignore the facts that form the basis of mathematics will make a poor mathematician.
To ignore the facts that form the basis of carpentry will make a poor carpenter.
To ignore the facts that form the basis of biology will make a poor biologist. This man is to be recommended for a position based on his understanding of biology, not his personal religious dogma.

What are you saying? That all students of mathematics are judged on their competency based on whether or not they understand that 2+2=4 but Johnny should be exempt because his beliefs dictate that 2+2=47 even though that is mathematically incorrect?

Regardless of anyone's beliefs, 2+2=4, the earth revolves around the sun and the facts support evolution not creationism.

If you do not accept the fact that 2+2=4 then you should not receive a recommendation as a mathematician.
If you do not accept the fact that the earth revolves around the sun then you should not receive a recommendation as an astronomer.
If you do not accept the fact that 12 inches equals one foot then you should not reveive a recommendation as a carpenter.
If you do not accept the fact that the evidence supports evolution and not creationism then you should not receive a recommendation as a biologist.

PREACH IT BABY!! CAN I GET AN AMEN!!

Quote:

Being a creationist does not make people bad doctors, bad physicists or bad geologists. Note I italicise necessarily in every one of my posts. Assuming creationists are intrinsically incompetent is wrong. In many cases you will find that these people only lack the ability to apply logic in this one facet of their lives and are not polarised to either ultra-rational or so irrational they see no reason ever.

heath,

This is a straw man. Dini clearly says he wants a scientific answer to a scientific answer. He asks about the origin of humans. Somebody who needs to compartmentalize the information could easily rationalize that God set the process in motion, or tinkered with our ancestors to produce us. But somebody who just can't accept evolution as reality is not even trying to think scientifically.

In day-to-day practice, many geologists would not need to confront this. But one has to wonder how they could get around radio-dating. Unless they are OEC, not YEC. In day-to-day practice, many physicists need not confront this. But they certainly can't do astronomy (unless they are OEC) and can't do cosmology (period).

More importantly, though, the recommendations Dini writes are for graduate work in biological fields or in medicine. So the question of geologists and physicists doesn't apply here.

In day-to-day practice, such a limited person might be a "doctor." But one has to wonder how he can reason about microbes building resistance to drugs. One has to wonder how he can address genetic diseases, given that he probably has a problem with the concept of mutation. Moreover, if he clearly rejects the scientific method used to arrive at evolutionary theory, then what can we say about his ability to assess medical literature? He clearly doesn't understand why peer-review arrives at scientific truth. He clearly misunderstands the criteria for assessing hypotheses and creating and testing theories. He can't tell good work from bad work. He can't tell scientific truth from fiction.

Cheers,

Sorry to bring this thread back to life again, but when I saw this on snopes today I thought it was worth including in this discussion.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/hager.htm

In essence, it's an example of how a medical practitioner may be allowing strong religious beliefs to become his version of facts and how this may impact on patients and the health system at large.

[Jeff Corey]

Hot damn! I'm gonna cut down on my workload this year and require students requesting a recco to have an A in at least one of my classes, a nodding acquaintance with me and an explanation why Freudian and other cognitive psychologies resemble bat guano (not the general in Dr. Strangelove).

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Hot damn! I'm gonna cut down on my workload this year and require students requesting a recco to have an A in at least one of my classes, a nodding acquaintance with me and an explanation why Freudian and other cognitive psychologies resemble bat guano (not the general in Dr. Strangelove).

Yeah, what do you think of what the fellow in Texas did, though?

I'm with you on Siggy Fraud. I'm just not Jung enough for that. (I think SF was sincere, btw, just deluded. It's some of the modern stuff that looks like "black magic" to me.)

I really can't respect Jung. Is it just me, or is the whole collective unconscious thing just a tad bit woo-woo?

[Ladewig]

Quote:

I really can't respect Jung. Is it just me, or is the whole collective unconscious thing just a tad bit woo-woo?

I agree although I do appreciate the poetic imagery in all those achetypes.

[arcticpenguin]

bump - the Justice Department has dropped its investigation of Dini

Quote:

The department said it ended its probe after Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement in his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution.
...
(Dini's) Web site now reads: ``How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.''

[Phaycops]

Right result, wrong reasons. Oh, well

[Skeptoid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Mr. rwald,

Could you expand on why you believe, to use different words, there is no evidence for collective consciousness?

Sincerely yours,

S. Holmes

Hi S. Holmes,

This thread was started back in January and just recently was bumped to update the status of the case. Mr. rwald hasn't posted on the forums for about a month. He could return at any time, I suppose, but don't feel ignored if you don't get an answer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptoid

Hi S. Holmes,

This thread was started back in January and just recently was bumped to update the status of the case. Mr. rwald hasn't posted on the forums for about a month. He could return at any time, I suppose, but don't feel ignored if you don't get an answer.

Dear Skeptoid,

Thank you for pointing out that date. I had not noticed the date when I posted my response to rwald.

I deleted my previous post.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Lord Emsworth]

From this side of the Atlantic Ocean the whole debate about creationism/evolution looks like something of yore, but not really unattractive.

The Prof., I think, should base his writing of recommendations solely on the ability of the student; that is, something on the lines of: "You will only get a recomend. if you earned an A-Grade" (So he does. Fine!), but not on the grounds of wheather the student can "truthfully and forthrightly affirm" something, however essetial this something might be, or not. Why shouldn't a student know everything about a theory he doesn't believe in.
A similar question would arise, if an atheist decided to study Theology, and then encountered a Prof. who distinctly tells him he will not get a recommend. if he (the student) doesn't believe in Gawd.

The student, on the other hand, should ask himself if he has chosen the right subject. He resembles a mechanic, who believes a car is driven by supernatural powers.
I'd recommend the aforementioned Theology to him.


I forgot to say, that I, by and large, appreciate the Prof.'s sound views on things. There is only this little caterpillar in the salad.

[rwguinn]

Quote:

Originally posted by heath


Nice rant. But still wrong.

If a plumber thinks fairies push the water through the pipes he can still be a damn good plumber.

But he'd be a realy lousy fluid dynamicist or other theoretical johnny.
Face it, the ultimate (non) answer to anything is "God did it". everything is therefore explained. Think of the theory and laws encompassed by "Let There BE Light" and you see what we're up against.
the good prof merely requires that you put the scientific method to use. If in so doing, you can support creational "science", then have at it.

Roger

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
The Prof., I think, should base his writing of recommendations solely on the ability of the student; that is, something on the lines of: "You will only get a recomend. if you earned an A-Grade" (So he does. Fine!), but not on the grounds of wheather the student can "truthfully and forthrightly affirm" something, however essetial this something might be, or not. Why shouldn't a student know everything about a theory he doesn't believe in.

This last sentence sounds like you are arguing with yourself. From the context, I assume you mean to ask "why should a student..."

The students in question wish to either go onto graduate school in biology or onto medical school. There are three issues at stake here. 1. Does such a student really understand science if he does not understand that evolution is a scientific fact and that the theory of evolution has held up for almost a century and a half? If he doesn't then how will he be able to judge medical journal articles when he becomes a doctor or a biolgist? 2. Assuming he wishes to become a doctor and understands science but somehow still can't grasp the overwhelming evidence of evolution, how will he understand the current problems in medicine: the evolution of resistant diseases and the advances in genetic medicine? Will he poo-poo the (evolutionary) need to withold wide-spectrum antibiotics where not indicated? Will he poo-poo the (evolutionary) need for his patients to complete the full, prescribed cycle of antibiotics or anitvirals?

Quote:

The student, on the other hand, should ask himself if he has chosen the right subject. He resembles a mechanic, who believes a car is driven by supernatural powers.

This is exactly the point. I think you've simply missed how important evolutionary understanding is to the challenges ahead for the medical community.

Cheers,

Dear Mr. Blue Monk,

Quote:

Regardless of anyone's beliefs, 2+2=4

2+2 in fact does not equal 4 in many systems of mathematics. You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition.

Quote:

If you do not accept the fact that 2+2=4 then you should not receive a recommendation as a mathematician.

Therefore this doesn't apply, unless you are referring to real number addition, which I believe you are.

Quote:

If you do not accept the fact that the earth revolves around the sun then you should not receive a recommendation as an astronomer.

A more competent astronomer would take the time to also note that both the sun and Earth are themselves revolving around something else.

Quote:

If you do not accept the fact that the evidence supports evolution and not creationism then you should not receive a recommendation as a biologist.

If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
[b]2+2 in fact does not equal 4 in many systems of mathematics. You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition.

Fascinating. Do regale us with specific examples of other "systems of mathematics". Focus especially on those wherein 2+2 <> 4.

Quote:

A more competent astronomer would take the time to also note that both the sun and Earth are themselves revolving around something else.

And how does that alter the fact of the relationship between Earth and Sun? It doesn't. It is an utter red herring, sir.

Quote:

If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation.

False. A recommendation is never simply on the quality of the work done. The more important question is the potential to produce quality work in the next position or the next level of schooling. I've turned the number 4 screw faster, more accurately and with fewer mistakes than anybody else on the assembly line. Therefore I should get a glowing recommendation for medical school? Hardly.

Cheers,

[rwguinn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

2+2 in fact does not equal 4 in many systems of mathematics. You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition.

Very interesting. Perhaps you are speaking of a different number base? no- even in binary, 10+10=100, which is indeed 2^2, or 4. Works for any base I have tried. must be something else.
Lets try using Logarithms, (Ln or Log10) adding them is linear- ie, 2+2=4, which is to say 100*100=10000, 10^2*10^2=10^4
I'd like to know one of these other systems-and, if it's Andersontics, or enron agebra, I will at least know where the local school administration is coming from...

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Therefore this doesn't apply, unless you are referring to real number addition, which I believe you are.

2j+2j=4j, so even imaginary numbers follow the linearity

Roger

Dear all,

I made a mistake by claiming that there are "many systems".

Mr. BillHoyt, here is my "regale".

I can only think of mod 4 (2+2=0), where there is no number "4", and mod 3 (2+2=1).

And

Quote:

False. A recommendation is never simply on the quality of the work done.

I agree, which is why I said
(emphasis added)

"If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation."

There are a lot of factors that go into a recommendation. I don't think we disagree on this.

Also, don't overlook the fact that 2+2 rabbits > 4 rabbits.

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[CurtC]

Quote:

Lord Emsworth wrote:
The student, on the other hand, should ask himself if he has chosen the right subject. He resembles a mechanic, who believes a car is driven by supernatural powers.

First, you argue that if a student's work is good in the course, then he should get a recommendation. But a recommendation is more than an "A" in the course - anyone can look and see that. A recommendation is the professor taking the trouble to tell prospective med schools "I recommend that this student would make a good doctor."

But like you said, a person who believes that a car is driven by supernatural powers would not make a good mechanic. It's also clear that a person who belives the human body is driven by supernatural powers would make a poor doctor.

[Zombified]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I can only think of mod 4 (2+2=0), where there is no number "4", and mod 3 (2+2=1).

4 mod 4 = 0, so 2+2=4 mod ANYTHING. It doesn't matter in any case - trying to change the definition of 2 to make some point about relativism misses the point rather fundamentally.

Quote:

"If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation."

There are a lot of factors that go into a recommendation. I don't think we disagree on this.

But we apparently disagree on whether demonstrated intellectual dishonesty ought to be one of those factors. The mental contortions required by an educated person to justify creationism are really that severe. How could anyone ever trust a creationist to assess evidence of anything?

Recommendations aren't grades, and students aren't owed recommendations. They are personal endorsements.

Quote:

Also, don't overlook the fact that 2+2 rabbits > 4 rabbits.

That's multiplication.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I can only think of mod 4 (2+2=0), where there is no number "4", and mod 3 (2+2=1).

The modulus function is a function, sir. You expressed it incorrectly. It should be "(2+2) mod 3 = 1" That equation works because 2+2 is still equal to 4 and 4 mod 3 = 1. You have still not demonstrated the claim of 2+2 <> 4.

Quote:

"If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation."

There are a lot of factors that go into a recommendation. I don't think we disagree on this.

I'm glad we don't disagree about many factors going into recommendation. But if you agree there are many factors, then why do you say they should receive the recommendation "based on the quality of work done"? Either the other factors factor in or they aren't really factors.

Cheers,

[Lord Emsworth]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt
This last sentence sounds like you are arguing with yourself. From the context, I assume you mean to ask "why should a student..."

The meaning I intended was: A person can know everything about a theory, even if he doesn't believe in it.
I'm sorry if my English sometimes seems a little bit awkward. I'm not a native speaker.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt
This is exactly the point. I think you've simply missed how important evolutionary understanding is to the challenges ahead for the medical community.

I don't think I have. If here at Bonn-University somebody would turn up in the biological or medical department claiming he believes in creationism, he would get a loud, reverberating laughter.

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtC
First, you argue that if a student's work is good in the course, then he should get a recommendation. But a recommendation is more than an "A" in the course - anyone can look and see that. A recommendation is the professor taking the trouble to tell prospective med schools "I recommend that this student would make a good doctor."

But like you said, a person who believes that a car is driven by supernatural powers would not make a good mechanic. It's also clear that a person who belives the human body is driven by supernatural powers would make a poor doctor.

It might be very, … , very improbable, but not impossible.

But I think you are right; merely understanding, and not believing, in Evolutution is not enough, if you want to become a Doctor or something like it.
If I come to think about it, I wouldn't want such a person as my doctor.

[Jethro]

If you're adding vectors 2+2 <= 4.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jethro
If you're adding vectors 2+2 <= 4.

Fair enough, but we're no longer talking about adding 2 + 2. We're now talking about adding [2,x] + [2,y]. Totally different proposition.

Cheers,

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The modulus function is a function, sir. You expressed it incorrectly. It should be "(2+2) mod 3 = 1" That equation works because 2+2 is still equal to 4 and 4 mod 3 = 1. You have still not demonstrated the claim of 2+2 <> 4.

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

I wasn't thinking of mod as a function, but rather as a group, Z_3 for example. In Z_3, 2+2=1. There is no "4".

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

I wasn't thinking of mod as a function, but rather as a group, Z_3 for example. In Z_3, 2+2=1. There is no "4".

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

Actually, 2+2 =1 only if Z_3=(0,1,2). The modulus function is still at the heart of the group operation.

Cheers,