2005 Scientific Highlights

Nomad37 writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has a great wrap-up of the great moments in 2005 for science. The story covers everything from evolution to space exploration, the role of genetics in brain disorder to nuclear fusion. The story provides a neat overview for those of us who haven't been checking Slashdot regularly enough!"

Nice.

[Starker_Kull]

Sometimes, it's easy to forget that science is alive, well, and thriving when reading all the ID and creationist nonsense that is circulating throught the media today - it's a nice reminder that while ID is getting some press, REAL science is getting money, time, top-notch researchers, and revealing ever more about how our amazing Universe works. Happy New Year!!!

Just go home if you're going to post dupes

[1u3hr]

This article is from the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting the American Association for the Advancement of Science's "Top 10". Yesterday the Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005 [slashdot.org] story was the BBC reporting the same fucking list. By cleverly putting "evolution" in the title then Zonk got the standard 800 posts you always get when you wave that red flag.

A great but sad evolution achievement this year

[surfingmarmot]

A federal court ruling quashing the teaching of the religiously-motivated pseudo-science of intelligent design in Pennsylvania schools (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ [msn.com]). Its great to have fought off this challenge to science and education in America (yet again), but sad that we are still having these challenges after all science has accomplished since Western mankind threw off the yoke theocracy first put on science in the Middle Ages.

Re:Nice.

[castoridae]

That's why creationists receive media attention; media obsession with the underdog.

How about a strong lobby with the party in power, and a well-organized, strongly coherent, and rather vocal voting bloc?

Re:Nice.

[bloodredsun]

I agree with you to a certain extent in that people take knowledge for granted but that is understandable. Knowledge at a certain level does become, for want of a better word, "magic".

I have a PhD in Neuroscience and while I could tell you a load of info on biological sciences and basic science in general, I am no more able to tell you of quantum physics than anyone else. This means that I must take this information on trust from people who I know more than I do: teachers or scientists. On the surface this trust is based on faith, and is the same as listening to the Clergy, but there is a major difference.

Newtons's phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" was reference to the fact that all science can trace it's roots back to basic experiments that we can all do at home. This is where science differs from religion. The ability to go back to founding principles and show your proof rather than telling people that the answer is "because God said so".

Treating subjects such as evolution as a fact is more a reflection of certainty than being closed minded. As our body of knowledge increases, patterns of data become more and more certain and we start to regard these patterns as absolute facts. It's then only natural to spend our time questioning other areas of knowledge, but in the knowledge that we can go back and re-examine our data and assumptions. This differs hugely from the average creationist where facts are given with no proof (other than "the Bible says so") and to try to question them is heresy.

And as for the media being focused on the youth, will they are the focus of the media, the hands that hold the reins are definitely not youths.