Construction 101 Course: Fill & Download for Free

“Still believe”? What is it that we are supposed to envision here? Scientists dressed up in ceremonial white lab coats, entering the Great Temple of Science, and professing their belief in the Original Singularity in the form of shared prayer? Is this really how many people think science works?Science is not about belief. It is about evidence. Whether it is global warming, vaccinations, evolution through natural selection or physical cosmology, it is about observational data; about theories constructed using the formal logic of mathematics to match that evidence; and the collection of new evidence that may either confirm or falsify the predictions of these theories, preferably the latter, because that’s how we learn new stuff about Nature.Our best theory of the cosmos, general relativity, predicts a cosmos that is either expanding or collapsing, with either an initial or a final singularity (or maybe both). Our observed physical universe specifically matches the predictions associated with an expanding universe that will not recollapse, which means a universe with an initial singularity.The singularity is not part of the universe. The theory’s predictions can go back arbitrarily close to the singularity but not the singularity itself. In short, the theory describes how the universe works after it has come into existence, but not how it comes into existence (if that question even makes sense, from a formal logic/mathematical perspective.)Having said that, we also know that if we get close enough to the singularity, when gravity was very strong, the predictions of a classical (as in, nonquantum) theory of gravity are no longer reliable. So never mind not being able to describe the earliest moments of the universe using our existing theories, we cannot even be sure that there was, in fact, an initial singularity.Now let me make this clear: This is stuff every student of physical cosmology knows. This is stuff that is usually presented in the first lecture of a cosmology 101 course, and has been since (at least) the 1970s if not before.But not as articles of faith. Rather, as a narrative overview of the science that said students will then study in detail, until they get to the point that they themselves can derive all key results from first principles (e.g., starting with Einstein’s field equations, or better yet, the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian and a putative matter Lagrangian), and learn to compare numeric predictions against observational data. In the process, they are also encouraged to question the assumptions, and may also learn about alternate theories, both historical (e.g., Hoyle’s steady state cosmology) and current (e.g., eternal inflation).

I would like to add to Dipjyoti Deka’s answer by saying that in almost all engineering colleges, if you are a B.Tech/B.E CSE student, there is a chance you will be taught C in your Introductory Computing 101 course in your first year.Of course you can start with any programming language but starting with C helps you understand programming constructs better and also makes migrating to other languages easy in the future.

The worst piece ever?My fellow quorans who have answered this question lack imagination.I can construct a philosophy right now off the top of my head that’s worse than all the examples given so far.Thesis: There’s no such thing as experience.proof:All cats have 3 tails each.If cats exist, then so do unicorns.Therefore, there’s no such thing as experience.There. I’ve constructed something that technically counts as a philosophy; it’s a proposition that falls under philosophy’s domain which is backed by an argument, but the argument is really bad. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, and the premises are both uncontroversially false anyway. The conclusion itself is so glaringly false that even the most hardcore skeptics affirm what this conclusion denies.It would be difficult to make a worse piece of philosophy than this if you tried, but I imagine there are several examples of philosophy that rival this one given as bad examples of logic in logic 101 courses.The winner is a tie between thousands of different terrible philosophies.