This page was orginially composed to ask friends if they would have time to critique what we are doing with the KUP Web site.  It was "NOT ON KUP WEB SITE" (no link path from "index.html").  We've now put it into the site because of several useful linkages from other pages.
What is science?   .   .   .   Really!     It's no joke!
Isn't science just another reality? (But one not for me!)
What good is science?  .  .  .  To me!   
What are we doing?

We are trying to find ways

We are looking for ways to use the World Wide Web toward these ends.

We have constructed an experimental Web site to probe the problems, to test the waters.  It is:

exploring the edges of human comprehension
<Click here to go there.

Where are we coming from?

Please look over our Web site with these points in mind:

Why do we feel it's needed?

 Discovery - Creation - - - - - - - - - - - - - Use

Higher education has traditionally been far more concerned with new disciplinary subject matter than with the use of knowledge by non specialists outside those disciplines.

"Our job is to throw the subject matter out in front of our students, and if they want to bend over and pick it up, that's their problem."

This sentiment was suggested by a professor who, in my opinion, was an excellent chemistry instructor.  It's still a sad dereliction of social duty.  Although most faculty would not express it quite so cynically, something like it does guide a lot of the teaching in higher education.  We envision more collaboration between learners and teachers that aims at actual use of higher learning long after the student leaves the college.  In fact, except for education of future disciplinary specialists, we suggest that such a goal should be paramount, rather than:

"I see my job as showing my students the wondrous nature of science.  Whether or not they can use their knowledge of science is simply none of my business." 
...from another faculty discussion.

We see many societal problems as growing out of failures of higher education to bring the kind of understanding to their students that has characterized the science of the past several centuries.  We see a need to try to do something about it.

And the Internet is the newly plowed ground in which we might plant some this
(Please use your "Back" button to return.)

How do we expect to get started?

We also see a possibility of using these Web pages to inject into discussions certain essential points that we see as being widely ignored.  This could well be an effective way to arouse interest in "the edges of human comprehension."

"That's a matter of personal opinion."
But some things are "merely personal opinion" only as long as we remain blind to some "Eureka!"

When we achieve that flash of insight, we no longer logically have a choice.
We must follow a truth -- a kind  of truth -- we had missed seeing.
Even if we would prefer not to believe it.
And even when many others do not believe it...
because they still do not "see."



For example:                                 Click on a graphic and see where it leads...

  • Everybody wants peace.  But peace lies at the edges of human comprehension.  Peace is is a property of more than one person or more than one country, and egocentrism, or ethnocentrism, blinds us to the path to peace and instead points us to paths to war.  This happens because each person feels free to select the one component of "value," from the millions of components, that puts him or her "at the top."  And every person or nation that commits atrocities easily finds a way to see those atrocities as "bettering humanity."
Patriotism sees 'us' above 'them.'
  • "Addiction" to gambling implies "blindness" to certain principles of elementary statistics.
lasciate omni speranza per me va nella
  • The use of hypnosis to find deeply "hidden" truth in a person's memory ignores the fact that hypnosis is a state of heightened suggestibility.  Implantation of false memories is then very, very difficult to avoid.
a magic, post-modern path to the truth
  • Ranking of anything or any group of people almost always involves the reduction of a multicomponented measure to a scalar measure, which introduces great oversimplification.  Personal biases are then very, very difficult to avoid.
it's easy to make dumb assumptions about intelligence
  • Silt storage is an unavoidable byproduct of constructing reservoirs.  Silt is a "waste" byproduct of the erosion caused by rain and water flowing downhill, which is, in turn, the process which the builder of the dam is "tapping" to obtain the free energy (a thermodynamics term) that does work for mankind.  Thermodynamics is knowledge from the mid-nineteenth century; however it's "simple but subtle" and remains missed by most at the beginning of the twenty-first century.  Just what is "energy"?
it's a shame
  • Some "truths" are not really arguable because they are merely points of simple, but perhaps subtle, logic (information processing), which sometimes are, and sometimes are not, "seen" by a person doing the arguing.  The "subtleties" lie in "unsuspected dimensions," and the argument needs to proceed into those dimensions.  (Exemplar: Color vision, where the "logic" is discrimination of wavelengths.  Protanopic color vision sees grass and oranges as "the same color."  The unarguable "subtle truth" is only that orange and green are different.)
orange and green are the and green are different
  • "Proofs" and "justifications" that rest on oversimplification are rendered invalid to the extent of the oversimplification.  Completely ignoring disconfirming evidence completely invalidates an argument—unless the issue is trivially simple.  When the "subtleties" of elementary logic (Boolean) are "unseen," confirming evidence alone often is seen as adequate proof.  (When we "see" some logic point for the first time, we may get a "Eureka!" feeling.)
what's the opposite of 'skepticism'?