OurHappySchool

The Encarta Dictionary Tools (Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation) clarifies the correct distinctive usage for each term:

“fewer or less?

As a general rule, fewer is used with things you can count (fewer meetings, fewer people), whereas less is used with things you cannot count (less time, less money). The same difference applies to the use of fewer than and less than: fewer than twenty people, less than an hour.

American English, British English, and Australian English, among others, are recognized by many as patent varieties of the English language and some can even distinguish the differences among these ‘brands’ of existing English. But what about Filipino English? 

OurHappySchool.com aims to persuade people—kids, youths, and adults alike—that learning is fun.

One of its FREE PROGRAMS is to develop the youths' journalistic skills by encouraging them to write articles that OurHappySchool.com would publish on-line with their respective names in the by-line—something which they could proudly show to their friends, classmates, and teachers.

Editor’s note: This article by a Philosophy professor discusses the mistakes in rejecting faith in the name of science and argues that morality is outside the realm of science. Readers are welcome to leave comments. (You, too, can have your articles published here. Send them through e-mail to OurHappySchool@yahoo.com)

SOME SCIENCE ADVOCATES openly contend that science and religion are locked into a battle to the death. Believing that religion will sooner or later be certainly defeated, some assume that science is necessarily doing service to atheism ...

Editor’s note: Scientism as an epistemological approach is debunked in this article. Materialists and naturalists are also welcome to comment on this.

‘MYSTICALLY’ SPEAKING, RICHARD DAWKINS, the famed author of popular science books such as the controversial The God Delusion (2006), has an unquestioning allegiance to his own ‘god’ – science. Like many other naturalists, Dawkins sees science as having the power to untangle most, if not all, the mysteries of the universe without the need of the supernatural and thus believes that ultimately science can triumphantly address almost every problem.

Editor’s note: Prescribing the correct technical usage of the terms ‘valid’ and ‘true’, this article by a Logic professor of a university in Manila, Philippines is helpful to anyone who wishes to be knowledgeable in reasoning. OurHappySchool.com highly recommends it especially to those taking up Philosophy subjects.

Copyright 2011 by Jensen DG. Mañebog

IN ONE OF MY CLASSES IN LOGIC, the students asserted that the statement “All Hawaiians are Americans” is valid. Upon noticing the disagreement from my facial expression, some of them right away shifted to claiming that it is invalid. With slick smile, I pronounced that neither answer is correct ...

Editor’s note: This article that tackles about the defects of Darwinist-evolutionist worldview especially as a foundation of a moral theory welcomes comments from evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike.

IF DARWINISM AND EVOLUTIONISM were a viable worldview worthy of being a foundation of man’s set of beliefs especially in relation to morality, then it must at least be capable of explaining the origin of life, especially that of human life. Unfortunately, nothing in evolution satisfactorily explains the origin of life.