posted
Actually, now that I think about it, it’s more than that. It’s that it tries to combine two things that are just not combinable. Theism is NOT a scientific theory. Evolution is. To combine them in one term grates on me as much as the idea of teaching ID in science class.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If this were true then why do certain scientists feel the need to forbid any discussion of alternate theories in science class, when it comes to evolution?
Well, you've brought us full circle, Tres. No one is forbidding the discussion of alternate theories. They're complaining against the official stamp of approval on a non-scientific dogma intended to be presented in a science class with the sole purpose of preventing the real science from receiving proper consideration.
In short, ID is not science. There are many real scientists who believe in some form of ID, but even they know when the issue isn't about real science anymore.
If you want to worship the devil and call yourself a Christian, you can certainly do so, but that doesn't make you one. If you want to be a Republican, but are anti-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-welfare, pro-environment, pro-high taxes, and all the other non-Republican cliches, at what point is the word meaningless? If you want to promote astrology, ghost-whispering, and palm reading and call yourself a scientist can you really expect anyone to take you seriously as one?
quote:I suppose everyone is free to do science for themselves. But if not everyone is taken seriously, that doesn't really matter much.
This is silly. Why should everyone be taken seriously? If someone puts forth a theory that the earth is flat and it is shown that it is round, how much longer do we need to take them seriously if they refuse to even look at the evidence at hand?
I'm not saying that you can't be a real scientist and also believe in ID. You can be a real scientist and believe it ID or God or space aliens or whatever else you wanna believe. But when the dogma contaminates your science, you stop being a scientist and become a politician.
When an ID scientist puts forth a scientific arguement in favor of ID and his peers point out flaws in the experiment or illogical conclusions, or a complete lack of evidence in support of the conclusions, and the response isn't better experiments or refined procedures but instead a jump on the conspiracy bandwagon, well, how seriously are we supposed to take him as a scientist?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main reason the term is in use is so as to provide a reasonable alternative to creationism and intelligent design that emphasized the lack of conflict with religion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, Steve -- or may I call you Dick? -- I've been in excruciating pain, and I have better things to do when I'm hurting than to argue with someone as closed-minded as yourself.
First off: no, you may not call me Dick. May I refer to you as female genetalia? No? Good. I hate doing that. Well, either way, I am not a Dick. Hoewever, This guy I knew used to always called me Rich. I told him to wait a few years, because I wasn't Rich yet. And since he still can't call me Rich, you can't call me Dick.
And sorry about your back pain. I know that pain. I had a herniated disk L4-L5. I had to have a microdiscectomy, and the pain still isn't completely gone. In fact, my right foot still has some numbness to it even a few years later. If anyone remembers me from Endercon, I WAS THE GUY IN A FREAKIN' WHEELCHAIR!
If you're here, posting, I'll assume the pain ain't so bad. Besides, maybe you could talk to Tresopax, and he could convince you that the pain really isn't "real" pain, but only imagined (that's a swipe at Treso, not you, in case you were wondering).
posted
Actually, Tres would say the qualia of the pain can only be experienced by Lisa, and that though she cannot prove it exists, it really does....
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If science is mostly only open to the popular views, how do you explain all the major changes in science over the years?
I see this as evidence that science is self-correcting. It shows that if your science is good, it will eventually be recognized and built upon. Scientific progress isn't made by a movement. It is made by people doing science. Sure there is resistence to new ideas, especially where they seem to confict with what we think we know. It is a strength of science that not every anomaly, fad, or out-of-the-box idea is immediately added to the textbooks.
Getting ID into school textbooks isn't going to make it science. If there is any scientific value to it anywhere, it will be found by doing the science, not whining because the unsupported idea isn't adopted by the community at large and given time equal to that given much better supported theories.
[edit: I should take the "much better" out of that last sentence since it implies there is some scientific support for ID. (and no, weaknesses in established scientific theories do not constitute support of ID). ]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're here, posting, I'll assume the pain ain't so bad. Besides, maybe you caould talk to Tresopax, and he could convince you that the pain really isn't "real" pain, but only imagined (that's a swipe at TRreso, not you, in case you were wondering).
I'm the one who WAS saying pain in your head is still very much "real" pain.
quote:No one is forbidding the discussion of alternate theories. They're complaining against the official stamp of approval on a non-scientific dogma intended to be presented in a science class with the sole purpose of preventing the real science from receiving proper consideration.
Labeling alternative theories as "non-scientific dogma" and not "real science" is a major means of forbidding the discussion of those theories in science.
If it truly is non-scientific, scientists still ought to be able to discuss why they think it is non-scientific, in the same way that scientists who think a theory has been disproven should be able to discuss what evidence there is to disprove it.
quote:Getting ID into school textbooks isn't going to make it science. If there is any scientific value to it anywhere, it will be found by doing the science, not whining because the unsupported idea isn't adopted by the community at large and given time equal to that given much better supported theories.
But the whining seems to be going both ways... is it any more effective to try and protest that ID is getting too much time, when the majority in a given state supports giving it that much time? If the science is bad, won't it just be rejected eventually, in the same way you suggested good science will rise to the top eventually?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it truly is non-scientific, scientists still ought to be able to discuss why they think it is non-scientific, in the same way that scientists who think a theory has been disproven should be able to discuss what evidence there is to disprove it.
It is and has. The problem is that failing the overwhelming reception of this grand idea in the scientific community, the political wing of this movement has taken their case to the scientifically illiterate who apparently lack even the basic training required to understand why this idea is not scientific. It has been repeatedly shown why it is not a scientific idea in this very thread and several times on this forum. When those posts are read only enough to make semantic quibbles, and question what "reality" is and other philosophical navel gazing rather than to understand what those posts are actually trying to say. Well, eventually people stop trying to explain, cut their losses and go about something more productive (like science).
quote:when the majority in a given state supports giving it that much time?
So majority opinion, informed or not, is what we want to decide our curriculum?
quote:If the science is bad, won't it just be rejected eventually, in the same way you suggested good science will rise to the top eventually?
EXACTLY. That's it. The science is bad and has been rejected. Now we're dealing with the fallout of all the Johnny-come-latelies who don't understand the issue but feel that somehow their religion has been slighted.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
If it is and has been explained then that explanation should be offered in the classroom too.
quote:It has been repeatedly shown why it is not a scientific idea in this very thread and several times on this forum.
Not enough to convince me, and I'm hardly scientifically illiterate. I'm not scientist by any means, but I've studied enough science formally to know the ins and outs of the scientific method, and I've studied the philosophy of science in particular, which deals precisely with the question of what is or is not science. And I have, in fact, read all those posts completely. So don't try to write off the disagreement with that position as just scientific illiteracy. I also care very little for attempting to stick religion into public schools, so don't try to write it off as that either.
quote:So majority opinion, informed or not, is what we want to decide our curriculum?
Well, I'd rather leave it to the teacher to decide - but neither side seems to like that option. So, if the government has to make a decision for the teacher, then I'd say that ruling should be up to the majority - since we are a democracy.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I'd rather leave it to the teacher to decide - but neither side seems to like that option. So, if the government has to make a decision for the teacher, then I'd say that ruling should be up to the majority - since we are a democracy.
For the record, no one has tried to make "no mention of ID" part of the curriculum. It is the IDers who have tried to force teachers to neuter any presentation of Evolution in the science class.
quote:Labeling alternative theories as "non-scientific dogma" and not "real science" is a major means of forbidding the discussion of those theories in science.
Can you express for me a scientific theory that I have labeled such? Can you express a scientific theory that anyone in the discussion has dismissed out of hand? Can you explain why it is real science and how it fits the scientific method?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it truly is non-scientific, scientists still ought to be able to discuss why they think it is non-scientific, in the same way that scientists who think a theory has been disproven should be able to discuss what evidence there is to disprove it.
Hello? Are you listening? That's exactly what we are doing! It's exactly what "scientists" are doing!
And, since we've done it, and since we've disproved the claim that ID might have even the slightest bit of scientific validity, it is therefore totally appropriate to keep it out of public schools.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't teach Lamark's theoris of inheritance of acquired characteristics except as a footnote on a long-dead theory that didn't explain the facts that are explained by Evolution.
Since ID was discredited at about the same time, would it be okay if we just include a sentence on it right after dispensing with Lamarkianism?
Seriously, this idea is not new. It isn't novel. It has no more explanatory power now than it did in Darwin's time. It IS, HAS, and ALWAYS WILL be the wrong scientific theory of how life works.
People in the scientific community get so riled up about it because they KNOW it's been discredited and yet it keeps coming up and keeps getting credence from a gullible and uninformed public.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I will have to say, David, that I do find it fairly disturbing that 46% of Indiana biology teachers apparently believe the evolutionary theory is a fact. To fail to teach kids the difference between facts and theories is doing science a serious disservice. The facts in science are experimental observations. The theories are the models used to explain them."
This line of reasoning has some squishy little flaws in it that I would like to try to clear up (without getting into the philosophical/ontological/semiotic arena of how we really know what we know).
There are two ways of looking at this question of 'believing evolution is a fact,' and they are closely related.
First, just to get it out of the way: we don't really know how this survey was done, what the context was, exactly what question was asked, etc. Pollsters know they can get substantially any set of responses on any issue that they want to. In this context, it's possible at least some of the respondents thought they were merely asserting 'what they thought was true' in the everyday sense of the question; in other words, 'I believe the theory is accurate.'
If you look at what we do know about the poll (that respondents were apparently given the choice between 'theory' and 'fact') and put it into the context of what I say above, it becomes clearer that the choice is at least somewhat spurious. Everybody should agree it is a theory, but if I accept the theory as substantially true, does that convert it to 'fact'? But if I am in the camp that accepts the theory as substantially true, what other answer do I provide to the survey?
Thus opening myself up to, "Haha, he said 'fact.' Doesn't he know it's 'just a theory'?"
I make the above distinctions because even if the difference between fact and theory were as crisp as you seem to think, the survey result does not necessarily imply that all those 46% respondents actually teach evolution as 'fact.'
But second, let's address that difference between fact and theory. There are several points to be made here.
When a theory (or, as you correctly note, a 'model') becomes supported by some critical mass of opinion/knowledge (much of it 'factual' in nature, according the stricter standard of 'experimental observations'), then at some point it becomes an accepted theory. (I'll come back to the idea of 'accepted theory.')
In reality, evolution is accepted as fact by science (substantially all scientists, particularly biologists). Furthermore (as a matter of historical interest) the true importance of Darwin's Origin is that it pulled together for the first time enough evidence to convince scientists of evolution -- prior to Darwin, evolution was truly 'just a theory.'
As Karl pointed out earlier in this thread, no research, discovery, or experiment in almost 150 years has disproven the general outline of Darwinian evolution. Many dramatic new ideas have been encountered (micro- vs. macroevolution, punctuated equilibrium, new discoveries in geology and paleontology, the entire field of modern genetics, etc.), and these have resulted in an elaborately adapted structure of evolutionary theory -- not in its destruction.
The everyday language (among scientists) tends to refer to 'evolutionary theory,' not 'theory of evolution.' Think of it as 'gravitational theory.' Nobody doubts that gravity exists -- but there are myriad theories on how it functions. Similarly, evolutionary theory is the body of work that attempts to explain the myriad mechanisms that interact to result in what we acknowledge to be evolution.
Back to the idea of 'accepted theory.' This is a very important notion in science. One has to be able to progress from knowns to knowns. At what point does something become 'known fact,' from a practical perspective? To illustrate, consider the story of Goldilocks (with me playing the role of the heroine).
I came home from a weekend away (I live alone) and immediately had that prickly feeling that someone had been in my place. Absolutely no evidence. But human nature being what it is, my next thought, automatically, was 'who could it have been?'
Let's pause here. What is wrong with what I just wrote? Here's a hint: what if I knew that my apartment was absolutely secure and impenetrable? The thought 'who could it have been?' would be odd in this scenario. I have proposed a first theory, 'someone has been in my place,' and how I approach investigation of this theory depends on whether I consider it even possible for someone to have gained access.
In actuality, my apartment is not Fort Knox. In fact, my teen daughter has a key. So I very quickly conceived a series of possible explanations in my mind, ranging upward in probability from ghosts, to aliens, to the police, to neighbors, to my daughter. So now I have a second theory, dependent on the first: 'my daughter was here (and boy is she in trouble).'
And as I progressed into my apartment I looked for pieces of evidence that would support the first theory (things moved or changed from the way I left them, etc.); and evaluated them against the second theory.
It wasn't long before I had enough evidence to 'prove' both theories (TV set tuned to channel my daughter likes, ITunes open to music my daughter likes, chewing gum in wastebasket, etc.), sufficient to make what was in effect a statement of fact, 'my daughter was here.'
So that's a little like evolution. Do we consider it possible for evolution to have occurred? Or do we rule it out entirely? As long as we do not rule it out entirely ("my apartment is Fort Knox") we are free to 'accept it as fact' (i.e. a working hypothesis), at least sufficient to pursue investigations into nature like "why is this plant dying out?" ("Why is that gum in my trash?")
Investigations into nature can be done ever more efficiently and smartly if (a) an underlying model is assumed, and (b) it is true. You wouldn't prepare for a desert trek by stocking up on scuba gear.
And when such investigations reveal elegant adaptations, genetic markers, relationships among species and environments, etc., and these fall in line (even at excruciatingly detailed levels of analysis) with everything else that has been supposed, they not only provide proof of the specific answer ("My daughter was here"), but further validate the underlying hypothesis (evolution) that guided the inquiry in the first place ("someone was here").
posted
My husband made a good point about ID on his blog:
quote:This leads me to my real point. As you might know, the recent Election Day yielded victories and defeats for ID proponents. Clearly, considerable resources were spent opposing ID efforts. Given the state of many public schools in general, and the state of science education in particular, is this fight really the best use of our resources? Sure, now students won't be lectured on pseudoscience, but does that matter when they are not learning the fundamentals of physical and life science anyway?
That so many people make the fight against the teaching of ID theory a priority in education lobbying is telling. It says to me that people are more concerned with advancing secularism than with insuring that children get the best education possible. It's not that these goals are incompatible, of course. The fact of the matter is that the pursuit of one policy goal is going to carry opportunity costs.
posted
Mrs.M, that knife cuts both ways. The time and money involved by both sides would be saved if there weren't a concerted effort to undermine the effectiveness of science education in the name of fighting perceived secularism. It must be remembered, as I pointed out above, that no one went to any school board to weed out mention of creationism. The impetus for this whole debate has been the ID agenda to ensure science can't be taught without a nod to mysticism first.
Why is it more telling that people invest time in the fight against the ID agenda than it is that there is an agenda to fight? Why is it that those concerned with students being lectured on pseudoscience are somehow sqandering resources and those who are proffering the pseudoscience are not? As to the quality of education, fighting the pseudoscience at least has the benefit of correcting one problem. Caving into it would just let the system go that much farther astray. But at least we'd save a few dollars, I guess. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the record, no one has tried to make "no mention of ID" part of the curriculum. It is the IDers who have tried to force teachers to neuter any presentation of Evolution in the science class.
Hmmm... I hadn't realized this. I was under the impression that opponents of ID also supported trying to keep ID out of the curriculum altogether. I agree that forcing teachers to teach ID is not good and that these laws that hope to do so are misguided, but I do think teachers should choose to teach it.
quote:Can you express for me a scientific theory that I have labeled such? Can you express a scientific theory that anyone in the discussion has dismissed out of hand? Can you explain why it is real science and how it fits the scientific method?
Well, as I said, ID is not a scientific theory exactly because (like the evolutionary origin of species) it is not completely testable. It is a historical theory rather than a scientific one. But like the larger model of evolution as an explanation for life, ID is a model that helps us explain scientific theories - and it seems that you are dismissing it out of hand. It fits in with science because it attempts to solve supposed problems with the more popular theory of evolution and give an explanation for what could be causing those problems. In this way, it is just like the traditional theory of evolution, which is not a scientific theory, but helps us understand how things may have come to be the way they are using scientific theories as a foundation.
quote:Seriously, this idea is not new. It isn't novel. It has no more explanatory power now than it did in Darwin's time. It IS, HAS, and ALWAYS WILL be the wrong scientific theory of how life works.
How can it be both unfalsifiable and scientifically proven wrong? These things are mutually exclusive.
quote:And as I progressed into my apartment I looked for pieces of evidence that would support the first theory (things moved or changed from the way I left them, etc.); and evaluated them against the second theory.
It wasn't long before I had enough evidence to 'prove' both theories (TV set tuned to channel my daughter likes, ITunes open to music my daughter likes, chewing gum in wastebasket, etc.), sufficient to make what was in effect a statement of fact, 'my daughter was here.
That isn't true though - none of that evidence could have made your theory into a fact. A fact is something that is known to be true. A theory is something that fits all the facts known now, but might not fit future facts. It may be that you became very confident in your theory that this was your daughter and casually began thinking of your theory as a fact, but that does not make it a fact.
Similarly, scientists may be confident enough in their theories that they start calling them facts - but they are, strictly speaking, wrong to do so. At no point can a scientific theory become a fact, because scientific theories have only been known to hold true up to this point, and could always turn out to be wrong with every new experiement. This is especially important when the scientific theory is contraversial, as evolution is for potentially contradicting equally accepted religious theories.
So, while evolution may be an 'accepted theory' as you say - scientists would be wrong to call it (or any other scientific theory) a fact, even if every single scientist in the world were to think it is so. If they all did, it would only serve to prove that scientists aren't necessarily accurate with their language about facts and theories.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, Andrew clarified his position in response to a poster on his blog. He also elaborated on his position somewhat:
quote:Thanks for your comment. You're absolutely right on your first point; what I said about ID opponents can be said of its proponents. I should have said that in the post.
I also agree that there are some deals we wouldn't want to strike. I see it as a matter of weighing the costs and benefits of alternatives. Just because there are some costs we can't bear, it doesn't mean that we should always refuse to bear any cost. My hypothetical modest proposal carries a modest cost that I think we can bear.
Now, I would take issue with your statement that my hypothetical "presupposes that the unknown detrimental effects of teaching falsehoods to children are outweighed by reducing the cost to community of schooling them." The hypothetical isn't meant to posit the teaching of any falsehoods, strictly speaking, even from the point of view of the hardcore secular opponent of ID.
I should have been more specific about the "alleged problems" with evolutionary theory. ID proponents point to gaps in the fossil record as signs of weak evidentiary support for evolutionary theory. So the teacher would say that gaps in the fossil record are a basis for questioning evolutionary theory; as long as she doesn't say that scientists actually doubt the theory on this basis, she's not teaching any "falsehood."
Moreover, presenting the "central ideas of ID theory", such as irreducible complexity, doesn't amount to holding them out as factual. It would be like teaching the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System in an astronomy class to give a little historical flavor. In "explaining the theory", the teacher would not actually be claiming that the sun circles the Earth.
Now that I've clarified the term of the deal, I'd have to stand by my decision to take it.
I do not say that all aethistic scientists (engineers, users of the scientific methodology) put a morality into science in general or evolution in particular.
Some people have.
Elitists, racists, and others have done so trying to prove that their race/group/nation is best because of its evolutionary supperiority. Economic and Social Darwinism are moral theories that are dangerous if not just useless.
Anti-Environmentalists who argue "We rule this world by right of might, so killing off some lesser species is not only correct, its naturally beautiful."
I have heard moral arguments based on bad science, or misinterpreted science for a long time.
Then again I knew a sad man who based his moral foundations on "The Pancake Principle." ("That is, you always ruin the first pancake you cook in the batch. Since I was first born, my parents ruined me.")
Most importantly of all, I have heard of, but luckilly never had, science teachers attack student of faith, calling their faith stupid, and the believers stupid, because faith is not scientific. They equate Science and logic AND ALL THE PRACTISIONERS THERE OF -- with high value and goodness. They equate faith and religion AND ALL THE PRACTISIONERS THERE OF -- with low value, no worth, and evil. To seek a higher power is to admit weakness, guile, or stupidity.
This attitude angers and frightens people of faith as much as the thought of ID as Science angers and frightens science users.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, presenting the "central ideas of ID theory", such as irreducible complexity, doesn't amount to holding them out as factual. It would be like teaching the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System in an astronomy class to give a little historical flavor. In "explaining the theory", the teacher would not actually be claiming that the sun circles the Earth.
Now that I've clarified the term of the deal, I'd have to stand by my decision to take it.
I like it.
I stated earlier that I'd be in favor of adding ID to the same segment as when they cover Lamarkianism. And it could be handled in the same manner -- as a discredited theory.
quote:How can it be both unfalsifiable and scientifically proven wrong? These things are mutually exclusive.
Well, there are portions of it that CAN be tested -- like the irreducible complexity of some feature supposedly unable to be achieved through evolutionary means.
And...as I've said repeatedly in this thread...whenever there has been time for testing such things, the irreducibly complex things have been found to be reducible and not so complex after all.
And, so far, the proponents of ID have not behaved like "real scientists" and acknowledged that the examples they proposed didn't work out. Oops.
There are other aspects of ID that are untestable and always will be -- like the central tenet that if we were ever to find something in a biological system that IS irreducibly complex that it would show without question that a creator must've made it.
If we are allowing exogenous sources for the creator, it would seem to me that we must also allow exogenous sources of raw genetic material. If so, then it is obviously possible that evolutionary forces on some far distant world created a bit of DNA that somehow got transported to Earth and pulled into the Earth's genome.
that would not require an intelligent creator. It would only require the intergalactic equivalent of a rat jumping ship on some long-ago earthly visit.
At best ID should be called "exogenous source" theory. But that's not very glamorous and it doesn't serve the secret purpose of shoehorning God into science classes.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it is and has been explained then that explanation should be offered in the classroom too.
And should we also explain why, let's say, phlogiston is wrong? Ether theory? The gravitational-collapse theory of where the Sun gets its heat?
On the subject of theistic evolution, I don't the phrase is intended to cover the kind of beliefs that dkw outlined; rather, it is intended to cover people who believe that their god actively guides (not just passively sets in motion) evolution. Presumably this involves a little nudge here and there to a cosmic ray, to make it produce just the right mutation. In other words, it's ID except for the 'agnostic about the identity of the designer' but.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, KoM, you're mistaken. Theistic evolution is a term coined to include those who believe God is somehow responsible for evolution, quite possibly even for the constancy of its working, but only in the same way they believe God makes everything in the universe happen.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, I suggest that my definition makes a lot more sense, for precisely the reasons dkw outlined.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term is also bad for theology. Example: 600 years ago religious people believed the sun revolved around the earth. So did atheists. Everybody did, so far as I know. For some religious folks the idea was deeply entangled with their religious belief, and when our understanding of science improved, they were unable to untangle it. Hence the Galileo fiasco. I prefer to keep the descriptions of the world we learn from science – the provisional, this is the best model we have now, but it is constantly being improved knowledge – distinct from my beliefs about ultimate meaning and purpose.
As far as God subtly “nudging” evolution, I liked an analogy from Finding Darwin’s God – which is more impressive, a pool player who lines up a single shot and clears the table, or one who drops each ball in the pocket by hand? I believe that God created the universe and everything in it, time and space included. I don’t need to believe that there are gaps in evolutionary theory to leave space for God.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And should we also explain why, let's say, phlogiston is wrong? Ether theory? The gravitational-collapse theory of where the Sun gets its heat?
If they are contraversial then yes, definitely.
Chances are very high that at some point in their lives, if not at many points, they are going to be confronted with the debate over evolution. They might someday post on a Hatack thread on it, and if they aren't informed on the issue, they might have nothing to say if someone attacks him as "ignorant". They might even have to vote in consideration of the issues surrounding it, as the people in Kansas have. Hence, if we want them to be informed, we should be teaching this. Similarly, if they had a need to know about phlogiston, we should be teaching that too.
It should be noted that I was taught a whole number of disputed, rejected, or unpopular theories in science class. We spent a great deal of time on the geocentric model of the universe. And for most of my education, until college, I was taught that electrons are little spheres that revolve in concentric circles around an atom. For that matter, it even seems that you were taught phlogiston theory at some point - I know it came up in my college science classes at least one time. I have seen no reluctance in the education system to mention or even teach disputed theories in class if it were believed that such theories would help me become better informed in some way.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If greater than half the people in the US believed in Ether theory, you'd HAVE to address it in the classroom.
But I'm with Andrew in that too much energy is being spent on this debate and not enough on the glaring fact that huge numbers of science teachers are not teaching science (in particular, natural selection) at all...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The facts in science are experimental observations. The theories are the models used to explain them.
This is a very contentious minority opinion in the philosophy of science: radical empiricism, as opposed to scientific realism which is the more common approach.
Basically, the realist agrees that theories are models used to explain experiments, but then claims that the entities appearing in the models should be recognized as facts.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, I think the distinction is a subtle one that not everyone in this discussion (let alone the broader "discussion" outside Hatrack) is going to understand or appreciate.
From a practical standpoint, IMO, scientific realism is a relaxed version of empiricism in that it makes room for something to be regarded as a "fact" even if the method of establishing that fact is NOT true experimentation (i.e., an actual controlled study could not be done).
An example might be something like the early stages of the universe. we don't necessarily have to assert the BIG BANG (which is a theory) as fact, but there is general agreement that the universe began in an infinitely more compact form than how it exists today. Whether that was a tight ball of matter or a densely packed grouping of matter spread across some appreciable distance is sort of up for debate... But that all signs point to expansion from a tiny space originally seems pretty much established.
A radical empiricist might not agree, but people who have to work in the field of cosmology are at least willing to grant this as a "given" starting point and use it in developing theories of other things.
Maybe what we have to point out is that sometimes scientists work from a set of assumptions and draw conclusions based on those assumptions. The conclusions have implications for theories of how things work. So, they then go look to see if things actually work the way their theory says they must. If they do, then its more likely that their theory is true, and that means that it's more likely that the original assumptions are true.
None of it is ever really proved by direct experimentation.
And I know of no field in which radical empiricism as defined above could possibly be a fruitful approach to scientific exploration. It's a great way to run an engineering project (where you SHOULD be sure first) but it doesn't make sense at the leading edge of scientific discovery.
quote:This is a very contentious minority opinion in the philosophy of science: radical empiricism, as opposed to scientific realism which is the more common approach.
I care much less about what position is popular among philosophers than I do about what position is more logically valid. I tend to think the philosophical community bends over backwards too far to try and overjustify science, and I suspect this is because science has proven to be so successful over the past 300 years. It is no stretch to say that science has advanced knowledge far more than philosophy during that time period. I don't think that should be an excuse to give science more validity than it logically deserves, though. Scientific theories should only be considered facts only if they logically are facts, not just because science has been so successful that we feel the need to label its unverifiable theories as facts.
It may be easier for me to accept this than some because I don't believe there is a great need for certainty in our beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, we know very little for sure, have always known very little for sure, and hence have no problem basing our decisions on uncertain, unproven beliefs. I see no reason why scientific research would be any less "fruitful" if scientists viewed theoretical entities as unproven assumptions rather than certain facts. It makes no difference in terms of what research is done and what conclusions can be drawn from the research. It only makes a difference insofar as how much we should be certain of our conclusions, and how open we are to the possibility that our models are mistaken.
It's simply recognizing the uncertainty that logically has to exist whether we admit it or not. Recognizing that will in no way damage research, except opening up the possibility of accepting alternate models - something I think science really should always be willing to do.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see no reason why scientific research would be any less "fruitful" if scientists viewed theoretical entities as unproven assumptions rather than certain facts.
Isn't that exactly what most scientists do?
I thought we were debating what ignorant laymen do when they try to apply their own biased misunderstandings of science to things like high-school curricula.
Seriously, I know of no theory that is so dominant that it is viewed by all practitioners expert in that particular area as immutable fact. Not one. And certainly NOT Evolution.
Again, what ignorant people on the fringes of expertise in that area do with it is their own stupid fault.
Using poor treatment of ID by the field of Evolutionary Biology is, IMHO, not a valid counter example. Seriously, the issue has been dealt with to everyone's satisfaction already, repeatedly, and frankly, you can't blame people for getting just a little tired of it and wanting people who lack expertise in the area to simply shut up about it.
There comes a time when you just have to put your foot down in order to change the debate from something that's a complete waste of time and energy, and I'd say spending more than 100 years having to revisit the same debate because people just don't understand the field they think they have the right to comment on, and control education in is PLENTY.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There comes a time when you just have to put your foot down in order to change the debate from something that's a complete waste of time and energy, and I'd say spending more than 100 years having to revisit the same debate because people just don't understand the field they think they have the right to comment on, and control education in is PLENTY.
But why is this such a big waste of time? Isn't teaching scientific method important? Isn't discussing the difference between scientific theories and non-scientific theories important? Aren't the remaining challengers facing evolutionary theory important? Isn't the relationship between major religions and science important? A discussion of ID in school classrooms teaches all of these topics, in addition to the ID question itself.
When I was in science classes, plenty of time was wasted. We had school mandated science projects that mainly involved killing plants, making a poster, and spending weeks doing presentations on them. We spent large amounts of classtime watching videos that most students paid little attention to. We studied plenty of details that any non-scientist will probably never hear about again the rest of their life. We filled out lab packets that often took a lot of time and taught nothing. There was no shortage of wasting time. However, challenging students to question and compare prominent scientific and/or religious beliefs does not fit in that category. The ability to integrate beliefs across disciplines, question the theories written in their textbooks, and interpret scientific data for themselves is one of the MOST useful things we can spend time teaching them.
You claim that "ignorant laymen" don't understand the difference between science and religious theories. If so, why do you think this is? I'd wager it is because they were not taught it. If you don't teach students how to judge scientific beliefs for themselves, and if you don't teach them how to integrate the things science says with the things their religion may say, you should not be surprised when they fail to understand how to do so as adults. If you never mention ID in schools, and never discuss how it might refute or be refuted by other ideas from evolution theory, then you should not be surprised when they fail to see what scientists consider to be so obviously wrong with it. If you are religious and you have never heard about ID before, but then some politician starts talking about it, how hard is going to be to convince you to buy it? I'd bet not very hard at all. If you believe something is demonstrably wrong and you wish people to understand why it is wrong, the solution is not to avoid wasting time discussing it - the solution is to discuss it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
What would you say to ID being lumped in with Phlogiston, Geocentric universe, Paluxy dinousaur, etc., etc., as yet another failed and discredited theory, and we let it go at that? Would that be OK with you guys?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But why is this such a big waste of time? Isn't teaching scientific method important? Isn't discussing the difference between scientific theories and non-scientific theories important? Aren't the remaining challengers facing evolutionary theory important? Isn't the relationship between major religions and science important? A discussion of ID in school classrooms teaches all of these topics, in addition to the ID question itself.
I'm on record at least twice on this page saying I'd be in favor of teaching it as a counter-example -- a theory that is no longer considered tenable. And why.
Since that hasn't been proposed by the people who want ID in the classroom, generally, but rather they want it taught as if it had some explanatory value in and of itself, I'm against it.
If we could include ID theory in biology class as you suggest in your last paragraph, I would be inclined to donate money to help ensure that it happened.
Are you seriously saying that this is what the debate in Kansas and Pennsylvania was about -- the decision to put ID into biology class as a way to instruct people on how to be skeptical of ignorance in scientific discussions? If so, this is the first I've heard of it -- other than, of course the 2 times I've already said as much on this page, and the post by Mrs M.
If we could guarantee that ID would be treated the way Lamarkianism is treated, and as it so rightly should be, then let's go! Enough time has been wasted debating it.
But first show me the school board or ballot documents from KS and PA that outline this as the plan.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, are you still there? I am finding this discussion moderately interesting, it would be a pity to end it here.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No she's not, Bob. She specifically told me she was reformed. Unless she was misrepresenting herself to me.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by ssywak: And StarLisa, something tells me you're not "reformed," yourself. You're pushing some pretty fundamentalist concepts there yourself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny boy. You obviously haven't seen the fights I've gotten into on this forum defending the complete separation between government and religion. Do a search, maybe.
And I most certainly am reformed. I grew up non-observant, and during college I reformed. Now I'm observant.
...now why would she misrepresent herself like that? She doesn't say "Orthodox," she says "Observant" and "Reformed." She also bridled at the "fundamentalist" label. Me thinks the lady doth protesteth too much.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
She is Orthodox. She's using "reformed" not as a denominational description but according to its "I was wrong but now I am on the right track" definition.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe she was protesting your use of language. She's said more than once that she doesn't recognize the validity of different sects of Judaism, the only distinction is whether you're observant or not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, dkw, but having been "born" a Jew, I'd say that her POV is a lot of nonsense. It sounds like what someone from an extreme sect would say.
quote:I'm on record at least twice on this page saying I'd be in favor of teaching it as a counter-example -- a theory that is no longer considered tenable.
Except it IS still considered tenable by many - and science has yet to provide evidence proving it wrong. In fact, if it is as unscientific as many here have claimed, it would be impossible to find evidence against it. And even that is very much in question, because the limits and boundries of science are a question of logic open to any thinking person, not a question where people should defer to whatever the majority of scientists claim.
When you start teaching only one side of an existing contraversy, you have crossed the line from teaching into indoctrinating. That is not how schools should teach. And seriously, if you do attempt to indoctrinate students, you are simply asking for a protest from parents, especially when it could easily be taken as declaring their religion false.
Furthermore, why would it even be necessary to teach it in that way? If ID is indeed as obviously untenable as you claim it is, this should be clear to students even when taught neutrally and fairly. What exactly is it that we are afraid of, that we would want to keep the opposite side of the argument from those students? Teaching it as a contraversy with arguments to be weighed for each side should make both sides happy - because both sides believe their side will be proven correct, if the evidence is fairly laid out on the table.
quote:Are you seriously saying that this is what the debate in Kansas and Pennsylvania was about -- the decision to put ID into biology class as a way to instruct people on how to be skeptical of ignorance in scientific discussions?
No. Supporters of ID think they are right, and thus think that students will realize how right they are if allowed to see that possibility.
But if you think ID is clearly wrong, then it doesn't matter why they are trying to put the discussion in schools. If it is so clearly wrong then discussing it will only show that it is wrong. That is, unless teachers are being told to lie to students, and I haven't heard any proposals requiring that. Telling them that Evolution is a theory and that some scientists disagree with it for X, Y, and Z reasons is no lie. If X, Y, and Z are horrible reasons, then why should we be afraid people will be convinced by it?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except it IS still considered tenable by many - and science has yet to provide evidence proving it wrong.
Tres, you aren't listening. That's not like you.
The number of "people" who think it is tenable doesn't matter. The number of biologists working at an expert level in the field who think it is tenable -- that's the number we might want to even consider. People coming at from outside that area of expertise (chemists, for example) simply don't have the knowledge in the field to render a judgement. That they do so, and screw up, whether in small numbers or large, matters very little, except that they are noisy and get attention.
As for part II of your statement. The parts that CAN be tested (i.e., the testable hypotheses centering on examples of irreducible complexity), have been tested and they are found to be both reducible and not as complex as originally proposed.
I don't buy into the false logic that because the rest of ID hasn't been "proven" false, it MUST therefore be taken to be viable.
And, finally, you are being inconsistent. Your n-1 post stated that we could teach ID as a failed theory. Now you want it taken as a viable theory.
If you are going to argue both sides of the issue, you don't need the rest of us here.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, finally, you are being inconsistent. Your n-1 post stated that we could teach ID as a failed theory. Now you want it taken as a viable theory.
No, I said we should teach ID, period. I said nothing about teaching it specifically as a viable or as a failed theory. There is no need to slant the truth in either way. If you believe it is obviously failed, then you should be confident that discussing the facts will end up teaching students how obviously failed it is. And if you believe it is clearly viable, then you should be confident that discussing the facts will end up showing students just how viable it is.
quote:The number of "people" who think it is tenable doesn't matter. The number of biologists working at an expert level in the field who think it is tenable -- that's the number we might want to even consider.
But who is an expert and who is not? There are most definitely practicing biologists who support ID. Ask supporters of ID and they will tell you that these proponents of ID understand the issue better than all those who think it is refuted. They will suggest most biologists have been indoctrinated in a way that biases them against the theory. Opponents of ID, on the other hand, will try to label them as "extreme" and reject their expertise simply on the grounds that no real scientist would support ID. They will suggest that ID supporters are merely being influenced by religion. Either could be right - after all, most great ideas originated with a minority of one expert. Ultimately, in a democracy, the regular people will have to decide who is to be trusted as an expert and who should not be. Even if every single one of the people that you consider experts rejects a theory, it is still false to say the issue is decided if a vast number of average Joes doesn't believe in the expertise of those people.
Frankly, I'm fine with teaching that most scientists reject ID. This is true, and an important fact. But that is different from teaching that ID is agreed to be untenable. The latter fails to allow for the possibility that certain scientists do find it tenable, and that many people think those scientists are more informed than their more numerous peers.
Finally, it should also be added that if the question is whether or not ID is a scientific theory - that question is not really under the expertise of biologists. That would be a question for philosophy of science.
quote:As for part II of your statement. The parts that CAN be tested (i.e., the testable hypotheses centering on examples of irreducible complexity), have been tested and they are found to be both reducible and not as complex as originally proposed.
Well, I'm not informed enough to answer this. But if you can give me solid scientific proof that there is no intelligent creator, not only will I agree that ID has been disproven, but I will probably have to give up my religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
But there's nothing to teach, Tres. ID doesn't have any principles. You couldn't devote even half of a class to it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
