I was originally scheduled to go third, but overnight I was bumped to 34th, after Disco. spinner Rob Crowther.
Last time I did this, you got all my cursing and swearing, but I'll try to restrict myself to commentary a bit more.
Right now, a teacher named Lee Wagstaff is holding forth in favor of the creationist "strengths and weaknesses," and getting lots of questions, including questions referring to an earlier speaker who got no questions. These are questions that the expert chosen to help actually write the science TEKS would have had great insights into, but they asked her nothing.
Disappointing.
More like this
In particular, what do you want to ask them pertaining to science? For instance, the following questions have recently been proposed:
There is a movement afoot to develop a framework for a
href="http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/12/lets_get_the_presidential_cand.php">Presidential
candidate debate on science. Bora has been
proposing
It goes without saying that questions are the basis of scientific research. But all too often, especially in the PR department, we focus on the findings and forget about the process that led to those findings.
The recent uptick in troll traffic here and at Orac's place got me thinking. Many of the trolls have been making unsophisticated attacks on the truth without actually stating a hypothesis. And that got me thinking even more.
Those bastards!