In fight vs corruption, Duterte now points to Ayala, MVP companies as ‘big fish’ Palace OKs total deployment ban on Kuwait OFWs San Miguel Beer center June Mar Fajardo refused to make any predictions heading into the Beermen’s title series against the Barangay Ginebra Gin Kings.But the reigning four-time PBA MVP is sure of one thing: Game 5 will be necessary.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSGinebra beats Meralco again to capture PBA Governors’ Cup titleSPORTSAfter winning title, time for LA Tenorio to give back to Batangas folkSPORTSTim Cone still willing to coach Gilas but admits decision won’t be ‘simple yes or no’“For sure, walang sweep na mangyayari kasi malakas yung Ginebra,” Fajardo said on Tuesday during the pre-finals press conference.(For sure, there won’t be any sweep happening because Ginebra is a strong team.) San Miguel big man June Mar Fajardo. Photo by Tristan Tamayo/INQUIRER.net[/caption]ADVERTISEMENT Trump assembles a made-for-TV impeachment defense team Fajardo predicts there will be no sweep in PBA Finals PLAY LIST 01:02Fajardo predicts there will be no sweep in PBA Finals01:30’Excited’ Terrence Romeo out to cherish first PBA finals appearance00:50Trending Articles02:14Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard02:56NCRPO pledges to donate P3.5 million to victims of Taal eruption00:56Heavy rain brings some relief in Australia02:37Calm moments allow Taal folks some respite03:23Negosyo sa Tagaytay City, bagsak sa pag-aalboroto ng Bulkang Taal01:13Christian Standhardinger wins PBA Best Player award Putin’s, Xi’s ruler-for-life moves pose challenges to West Report: Disney dropping the ‘Fox’ from movie studio names San Miguel and Ginebra will meet in the finals for the second time in four conferences.The Beermen needed only five games to beat the Gin Kings in their previous meeting in the championship round back in the 2017 Philippine Cup.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. ‘High crimes and misdemeanors’: Trump impeachment trial begins READ: Cone unfazed as Ginebra faces ‘greatest team of all time’ in PBA Finals“Pareho kaming ayaw magpa-sweep. Magandang series ito, mahabang series siguro ito.”(Both teams don’t want to get swept. This will be a good and probably long series.)READ: San Miguel, Ginebra expect long, gruelling PBA Finals seriesADVERTISEMENT Lacson: Calamity fund cut; where did P4 billion go? Old rivals Fajardo, Slaughter finally face off in the PBA Finals Lights inside SMX hall flicker as Duterte rants vs Ayala, Pangilinan anew LATEST STORIES MOST READ DepEd’s Taal challenge: 30K students displaced View comments
Two of those meetings were in the CIF-Southern Section Division III championship game in Long Beach. No. 1 Whittier won 11-10 in overtime in 2005, and No. 2 Ayala took last year’s title, 10-9. They’ve played twice this season, with Whittier taking a comfortable victory in the season opener and winning 9-6 during the Santa Barbara Tournament of Champions. To say there’s some history between Whittier and Ayala high schools in girls water polo would be an understatement. The teams have played each other five times the past three seasons. They’ll meet again tonight for the Division III championship at Belmont Olympic Pool in Long Beach. “We’re playing them three years in a row for the championship, so we’re getting used to each other,” Whittier assistant coach Lansing Young said Sunday night. As for the superstition attached to attempting to defeat the same team three times in one season, Young said, “Of course we think about it. But I’d rather be trying to win three in a row than trying to win just the last of three.” A problem for the Cardinals could be Ayala goalkeeper Caitlin Dement, whose height and long reach can be trouble for teams that rely on strong counter-attacking and sometimes have problems with accuracy. Much of the Cardinals’ scoring comes from transition, but will be of little use if they can’t finish against Dement’s defense. “She’s very good, she covers a lot of area,” Young said. “She knows what she’s doing, and she knows where to go.” Young and head coach Chris Schneider, however, agree in philosophy. “Our concern is not just Dement, it’s the whole team,” Young said. “They’re very good. But for us, it’s mostly not what Ayala does, but rather what we do. “It should be a good game, a tight game. It will probably come down to which team wants it the most and shows it.” firstname.lastname@example.org (562) 698-0955, Ext. 3046 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!
What are the boundaries between science and pseudoscience? Before answering, look at some of the stories that made headlines on science news sites recently.Legendary science: Siberia plans to study the Yeti, reported PhysOrg. Yeti has nothing to do with extra-terrestrial intelligence; it’s the popular name of a legendary abominable snowman locals report having seen living in the Himalayas, like Bigfoot in North America. “Officials in a Siberian region have announced plans to open a scientific institute for researchers to study yetis, despite opposition from academics,” the article said. A local university hurried to distance itself from this project. But is the absence of solid evidence grounds for branding something as pseudoscience? After all, cosmologists look for dark matter, dark energy, cosmic strings, inflation, and other unobservable entities. Biologists search for missing links. Throughout the history of science, credible researchers have sought evidence for unobservable things in the name of science, SETI being a notable example.Martian invasion: Space.com seriously entertained the notion that life on Earth began at Mars. “New Tool May Reveal Your Alien Ancestry,” announced Mike Wall; “It’s possible that the family tree of all life on Earth has its roots on Mars – and a new device could put that theory to the test in a few years, researchers say.” David L. Chandler also wrote up the story on PhysOrg. The test would involve digging in Martian soil, separating out possible organisms, and sequencing any DNA or RNA found. An instrument being developed at MIT and Harvard is being given the name SETG: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Genomes. “It’s a long shot,” one of the designers said. A positive detection would not necessarily mean life originated on Mars; “we could have originated on Mars” is one option; “Or if it started here, it could have been transferred to Mars.” Space.com interviewed Chris Carr [MIT], one of the inventors, who emphasized the looking before the understanding. When, though, does this become a science project? How does SETG differ from the YETI institute?Intelligently designed Everglades: Thousands of mounds in the Everglades offer high ground for rich collections of plants, birds and wildlife. Where did they come from? A new theory suggests that some of them are unnatural; “Heaps of trash left behind by prehistoric humans might have given rise to many of the tree islands found in the Florida Everglades,” claimed Live Science. “This goes to show that human disturbance in the environment doesn’t always have a negative consequence,” a proponent of the theory from McGill University said. “Hundreds to thousands of years ago, some of the things humans did actually created valuable ecosystems.” It’s not clear if Gail Chmura was suggesting modern landfills can be beneficial, but one thing is clear: to test her hypothesis, she had to use intelligent design techniques – i.e., to determine if humans left their trash in these heaps on purpose. How the unobserved tribes lived in the swamps before the middens piled up was not explained.They came from space: Panspermia and six other theories about the origin of life were posted by Charles Q. Choi on Live Science. The seven notions – Miller spark discharge, clay, deep-sea vents, cold fusion, RNA world, metabolism first, and panspermia are all controversial and mutually contradictory. Does having multiple controversial, contradictory theories improve the odds that at least one will turn out to be scientific? Unless and until one of them succeeds, are any of them scientific? Even if one wins a consensus, will it have any necessary connection with the real world, or will it remain a hypothesis forever, since no one can go back in time to test it?Futurist paleoanthropology: Some day the successors of humans may find bones of us and wonder what they were. That’s a speculation posted on PhysOrg in the name of science. This thought experiment, like a Russian doll, embeds deeper puzzles: “Further research would show Homo sapiens walked upright, lived in communities and buried their dead,” the article said; “But this future intelligent organism might be faced with an old puzzle–determining where Homo sapiens came from.” What this implies is that scientists today do not know where Homo sapiens came from. Bernard Wood “argued it’s not so easy to determine whether relatively new fossil finds are early members of the human evolutionary family or prehistoric apes.” In the article, Wood shared a number of worries about understanding human history. Wood’s paper was described as a thought experiment – a term some in science consider an oxymoron. Does getting funding from the National Science Foundation confer scientific legitimacy on puzzles embedded in a thought experiment? How much time do paleoanthropologists get to figure things out and still be considered scientists?In the matrix: Mike Treder titled an eye-catching article on the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies website, “We’re all alone and no one knows why.” He invoked the Fermi Paradox (if aliens exist, they should have found us by now) and the Copernican Principle (we are nothing special) to sort out the pros and cons of three propositions: (1) We are the first beings capable of expanding into the cosmos, (2) Others have migrated but have made themselves undetectable, or (3) Others have hit roadblocks either by destroying themselves or hitting an impassible radius. He considered the first proposition absurd based on evolution and the Copernican principle. The third option he considered more plausible than the second. After considering objections, he concluded that aliens just can’t get out very far. He wanted to avoid any conception that we are somehow special, if not unique. “All in all, it seems clear to me – irrefutably logical – that some sort of cosmic roadblock, as yet unidentified, must exist,” he ended. “Either that or we are in a simulation.” Since none of his speculations are testable, but rely on assumption-driven deductions, do his ideas belong in science, pseudoscience, philosophy, or some other category?All the above weird and speculative claims were tolerated and even promoted by leading science reporting websites. Creationists and advocates of intelligent design, though, are routinely excluded from offering their research, evidence and insights within academia and the media. Why is that? Is it because their ideas are more weird than the above? After all, Dykstra’s Law quips that everyone is someone else’s weirdo. Is science a matter of sociology, then – being in the right peer group? On what basis do the science news media exclude intelligent design ideas while promoting all the above without with nary a peep of criticism? For decades now, philosophers of science have pointed out that there is no set of necessary and sufficient conditions for calling a theory scientific; there is no one set scientific method, and there is no means of validating science from within. There is no agreement on scientific explanation, scientific evidence, scientific verification, or scientific objectivity; and the sociological influences on science cannot be ignored. Within this messy situation, one would hope that observation plays a leading role, along with honesty, fairness, and logical consistency.Just as an accountant can count but not account for counting, a scientist can do science but not scientifically test science. Science can’t even account for the validity of our sensations relating to the external world. Some evolutionary epistemologists have tried to argue that our survival required evolution to give us reliable sensation of the external world, but that is not necessarily so, even assuming evolution: all natural selection would do is ensure reproduction. Besides, the argument is circular, assuming evolution to base a conclusion on evolution. One cannot escape philosophy – and ultimately, theology, which validates philosophy (philosophy cannot account for the laws of logic it employs). The only starting point that is logically consistent is faith in a personal righteous God who made the world and has granted to humans the ability to perceive the creation using the somewhat trustworthy, if not infallible, sense equipment he provided. This accounts for intelligence, the laws of logic, values of honesty and integrity, and the correspondence theory of truth (that our senses provide access to a real world). Any other starting point is hopelessly muddled in self-contradiction, trying to account for these requirements without sufficient causation or validation. Everybody has faith in something. A scientist may as well have faith in a world view that works: “in the beginning was the Word… all things were made by Him” (John 1:1-3). The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, Solomon said; it’s only the beginning. You can’t even start being wise without it. As evidence we offer some of the bullet points above.(Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest The Champion Berkshire exhibited by Ava Genter of Archbold sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters, D.A. Smith Auctioneer, Kremer Yorkshires, and Bodey Insurance for $3,400. The Champion Chester White exhibited by Lillian Rees of Bidwell sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters, Dean’s Pawn, Foster Sales, Ohio Valley Pig Sale, Ryan Smith State Rep. for $4,300. The Champion Duroc exhibited by Coby Hughes of Sabina sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters, Fayette County Pork Producers, and Huffman’s Market for $4,500. The Champion Hampshire exhibited by Mason Creager of Wauseon sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters and United Producers for $1,400. Reserve champion exhibitors: Berkshire, Aaron Rolfe, Sabina; Chester White, Alexa Hawk, Harrod; Duroc, Gracee Beth Stewart, Sabina; Hampshire, Austin Hunker, Bellevue; Hereford, Jennifer Bittner, Hamilton; Landrace, Madelyn Harrison, Hamilton; Poland China, Ethan Wendt, Dublin; Spotted, Kaci Way, West Salem; Tamworth, Ashton Frey, Upper Sandusky; Yorkshire, Madison Petro, Gallipolis; Dark Crossbred, Mason Creager, Wauseon; Light Crossbred, Lea Kimley, South Charleston. The Champion Poland China exhibited by Treanna Lavy of Pleasant Hill sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters, Miami Valley Feed and Grain, Sunrise Co-op and Tri-Ag products for $2,050. The Champion Landrace exhibited by Peyton Bumgardner of South Vienna sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters, Sunrise Co-op, Lensman Showpigs, Woodruff Feed and Fence and United Producers for $1,700. The Champion Hereford exhibited by Cameron Shellhouse of Sycamore sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters and United Producers for $1,300. The Champion Spot exhibited by Lindsey Dore of Galena sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters and John Regula, Auctioneer for $1,700. The Champion Tamworth exhibited by Liam Shellhouse of Sycamore sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters and United Producers for $1,150. The Champion Yorkshire exhibited by Levi Stauffer of Mt. Blanchard sold to Buckeye Barrow Boosters and Huffman’s Market for $3,500.The Buckeye Barrow Boosters also supported each exhibitor in the sale. They include: Ward Family Genetics, Jim Yeazel and Family, Ohio Hamp/York Crossbred Sale, Ohio State Fair Youth Gilt Sale, Korb Farms, Inc., Ohio Pork Schop, Kremer Yorkshires, Kimley Show Pigs, Ohio’s Country Journal/Ohio Ag Net, Moyer’s Genetic Edge, Rick Fogle, North Central Pig Sale, Isla Grande Farms, Bates Show Pigs, Mark Butterfield Family, Waits Family, Scott Evans Family, Michael Carson Family, Thompson Show Feed, Bryan Vaughan Family, 3N Livestock, Robert Keener Family, Roger Zeedyk Family, Wendt Livestock, and Nate Warner Livestock, Kaffenbarger Farms, Tony Nye Family, Ohio Spot Association, John Regula Auctioneer, Bob Foster Family, Fender Club Pigs, Fearon Family, Knecht Family, Dore Family, Kerby Wilcox Family, Jim Worley Family, Nathan Frey Family, Jason Adams Family, Scholl Family Ron Riley Family, Kevin Hancock Family, Chris Scott Family, Creager Family Farm, Kirk Swenson Family.