For the Moment, we're going to skip away from the foundations of knowledge and assume everybody knows basic Mathematics (See me after Class, Hiram).

Let's start off Physics with Classical Mechanics, with the most famous of Newtonian Mechanics equations:

Universal Gravitational Equation
F = GMm/R2

where

    * F is the force of attraction between two objects in newtons (N)
    * G is the universal gravitational constant in N-m2/kg2
    * M and m are the masses of the two objects in kilograms (kg)
    * R is the distance in meters (m) between the objects, as measured from their centers of mass

Gravitational Constant
G = 6.67*10−11 N-m2/kg2

Newton
1 N = (m*kg)*(m/s2)

Newton's Laws of Motion
Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They are:[note 1]

* First Law: "An object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force" or "A body persists in a state of uniform motion or of rest unless acted upon by an external force."

* Second Law: "Force equals mass times acceleration" or "F = ma."

* Third Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

For the Melodic Learners: "A Victim of Gravity", by The Tokens, better known for the song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb93OZXpFd0
-----------------------------------------------

Classical Mechanics later reformulated by Joseph-Louis Lagrange in 1788 to account for additional observations, and again by William Rowan Hamilton in 1833.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation gave way to the Geometric Theory of Gravitation, which explained more and with greater accuracy.
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:41, Sat 23 Jan 2010.

A song from my favorite band about Speed and Velocity :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRb5PSxJerM

How Does Science Work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6ydWUwNKM

I know BASIC mathematics as in addition, subtraction, multiplication, figuring out percentages and such. That is not BASIC.

As for science education the average person doesn't need to know all that, sure if your pre-college IN a science field but come on an average person working doesn't - really.

All I care about is God made natural law, can bypass natural law and its nice to know science in my case from programs like Nova but not necessary for most people.

Perhaps you can show me where I said it was?



Ignorance is a dangerous thing, which can be used against a person to lead them to harmful conclusions.

One of the major reasons why pseudoscience is so prevalent is the general lack of understanding by the populace of science.  The main tactic of pseudoscience is to appear scientific to those who don't know any better, and generally even the most basic understanding of the fields in question reveal their claims to be knowingly deceptive.

So, despite your appeal to sloth, society and its members definitely need to be educated, not just in science but in general.  To suggest that someone might be too educated seems sinister to me.



This is a prime example; I don't think you know what Natural Law is, based on this.  Natural Law is a concept that one can come to a universal, objective standard of right and wrong through reason.

That's a philosophy, not a science.  That someone¹ might not care is one of the main threats to maintaining our current quality of life, much less improving it.

EDIT: ¹Changed from "you" to "someone", as I did not intend specifically you, but anyone.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:36, Sun 15 Aug 2010.

Not really, there have always been people who don't care. What *is* a threat is a cmbination of an almost reverant regard for science combined with ignorance such that for many people the *idea* of science does become a religion that they cling to without understanding. When teh people who were ignorant of science had the sense to at least be sceptical of all 'new fangled ideas' it kept teh pseudoscience down signifigantly.

I don't think so; usually ignorance of science leads people to shy away from it or actively rally against it, usually resulting in the harm of themselves, their children, and others otherwise compelled by their bad choices.

Raw Foodism, Anti-Vaccination, AIDS Denialism, Germ-Theory Denialism, Global Warming Denialism, and other such rejections of one facet or another of science have led people to take actions directly and indirectly fatal to themselves and countless others.

The type of thing you describe is also a problem, but people thinking Quantum Mechanics works how Deepak Chopra says it does hasn't led to the resurrection of Polio and Measles in some areas of the country.

In both cases, however, education is the key.

There are differing degrees, admitedly active hostility to science can be a problem as well, but people who can be skeptical of it without hostility or knowledge of it by themselves are not a problem. If you look at the individual 'causes' you sight most of them are based in pseudoscience rather than ignorant skepticism. raw Foodism isn't being skeptical about a scientific discovery, it is a new fad which came up with some scientific sounding jargon to promote itself.

Right, it relies on pseudoscience, but it usually requires that a person reject regular science contrary to the position.

It makes a positive claim that necessitates a rejection of the more reliable claims, like the belief in Faith Healing which leads to the rejection of Medical Treatment.

Now, certain philosophies get around this with certain Claims; Scholasticism is founded on the idea that we can use Science to gain a better understanding of God's creation and thus gain a more correct interpretation of the Bible.

However, other philosophies reject this approach; one belief necessitates a rejection of the other if it challenges that belief.

I guess I'm sort of making a slippery slope fallacious argument, but I acknowledge that and perhaps you can show me that I'm wrong that once you start unraveling critical thinking you can quite quickly end up with total non-thinkers a generation or two later if left unchecked.

You have now made everal claims - your initial one being that *anyone* who was ignorant of science constituted a threat to civilization. My point is that there have *always* been people who were ignorant of science, and most of those have been of a blue collar naturally sceptical variety rather than fringe pseudoscience and fad followers.
Even the fringe groups though are not a new phenominon, Theosopists and phrenologists were well over two generations ago and did not lead to a collapse of the scientific disciplines.

Is skepticism out of ignorance something that should be ignored?  I still say that they do indeed constitute a threat to civilization, one that should be dealt with by educating away the ignorance.

There will always be ignorance, like there will always be sickness.  But we cure diseases nonetheless and are better for it, and we should do the same for ignorance.

But then, there are those who are willfully ignorant in their skepticism, and then there are those who act skeptical only in order to push their own ideas which don't hold up to skepticism.  That they are so successful is a symptom of an undereducated populace.



Phrenology was a scientific discipline back then, and I'm pretty sure Theosophy isn't a pseudoscience.  But we're not talking fringe groups here, we're talking mainstream quackery; Chiropractic, Reflexology, Homeopathy, Christian Medicine, Christian Science, Creation Science, Astrology, Dianetics, etc.

These things challenge, whether actively or passively, the infrastructure that has brought us everything we use and need, and we need to take measures to counteract the amount of hokum the average person expends their time on in lieu of reality, and we shouldn't have fantasy influencing the major, important decisions that we make in the real world.

Theosophy *was* a pseudoscience that became a religion.
And I didn't say that skepticism out of ignorance should be ignored, but painting a car mechanic who has trouble with algebra as a threat to civilization because he doesn't understand the proper scientific method is hyperbole in the extreeme.
And my orriginal point was that the pseudo-scientific ideas require not only ignorance of science but a form of blind adherance to the trappings of science as well. Pseudoscience would be safely in with the mystic disciplines if we didn't have a large population which has become indoctrinated with the idea that 'science has the answers' with little idea of what science is or how it works, allowing shyters to come along saying 'thst was the old science, this is the new science and everyone knows science is always advancing.' and have people nodding their heads. It isn't just an ignorance of science but a misrepresentation of it in our culture.