Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:18:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1445 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > Proof is in the eye of the beholder. *DISPROOF* is far more objective.
>
> However, scientific proof is not mathematical proof; a theory is "proven" as
> long as no subsequent observation contradicts it.
I'll hold off here-- is that what you meant to say about a scientific theory
being proven? IE that no contradictions "prove" it (and accepting that it is a
falsifiable theory)
> in casual parlance, describing something as "proven" is really a shorthand
> way of saying that something is verified beyond a reasonable threshold
> of doubt.
See, there's the bit that I was getting at: "reasonable threshold of doubt".
What's reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I actually really like that
little number series analogy, because I think it's highly applicable. How many
numbers do you have to see before you accept the theory of F(n) = F(n-1) + 1?
How many before you're beyond reasonable doubt? The amount of "proof" for
biblical creationism is very small, but it's enough for some people because they
*want* to believe it. "Normal" scientists aren't expected to have that same
"want", so they're theoretically slower to accept proof as being definitive.
> "Believe" is the wrong word to use here, especially in regard to scientific
> theories. Strictly speaking, it is not up to you to decide if you believe
> the theory; you may decide whether or not the evidence is sufficent to
> convince you that the theory is a consistent explanation of a phenomenon, but
> that's very distinct from belief. • [and from lower down:]
> Do you agree that there is a significant distinction between "believing" and
> "accepting?"
Um, no, I don't think so, apart from the slightly more enforced connotation of
"accepting" (IE that believing gives the general impression of self-induced,
while accepting sounds like the individual was initially contrary or unaware of
the idea).
I think that the distinction that you're attempting to make here is between
faith-based and "logic/experiential". IE that a "belief" is based 100% on
something intangable and unfalsifiable, such as "God exists" or "Stealing is
wrong" or "Tarzan loves Jane". But something you "accept" is based on real-world
experience such as "gravity exists" or "1+4=5" or "insulin lowers glucose
level". I *think* that's the distinction you're making, but I could be wrong.
In any event, I'm not sure I see the need to differentiate those things in
terminology. To me, they're both equivalent to something that the subject thinks
is accurate. The reasons why the subject thinks they're accurate is FAR more
complex than is able to be encompassed within the scope of metaphysical vs.
empirical.
But before I delve in further, I should probably make sure that that's the
distinction you're trying to make.
> ** I snipped some Myers-Briggs stuff the rhetorical inclusion **
> ** of which would require me to endorse certain assumptions of **
> ** that test instrument, which I am not prepared to do. **
Dang. Just when I thought I could broaden the debate! :)
> The Genesis/Big Bang comparison falls apart as soon as we recognize that
> according to Genesis God created the Earth, water, and plants before the Sun.
> The metaphor is of no use in this context.
Ha! And here I thought there wasn't anything more explicit about the sun, but
nope, you're right, it's pretty explicit that the sun actually comes AFTER trees
and whatnot. Hm. I wonder what the interprative creationist's excuse for that
one is? Eh, I'm sure they've got one.
> > Or that the Earth existed before they did. Further, you can use the sort of
> > "proof" that I always hate using wherein you compare similar cultures'
> > beliefs. Different cultures have seperate accounts of the flood? Maybe it's
> > true!
>
> That, likewise, is irrelevant; flood myths really only have currency among
> river-bound our coastal societies. Regardless, "maybe it's true" is not
> sufficient justification for including a myth in a science curriculum.
There's that "sufficient" in there again. Can you be more explicit about what's
"sufficient"? Here's that bit about personality and "it's up to you to decide".
All encompassed inside of "sufficient". For some people, they really WANT to
believe something, so they need less proof for it. For others, they really DON'T
want to believe (accept) something, so you've got to produce mountains of
ridiculous evidence before they'll yield.
> Be careful! There is no independent and untainted historical confirmation
> that Jesus existed at all, much less that he performed miracles.
Yep! But it's still pretty accepted (believed?) that Jesus *did* exist. Do you
personally think that it's true he existed?
> Certain forms of creationism are not incompatible with evolution, but they
> add nothing to the understanding of life, the universe, or anything. All they
> do is say "The entity or force did it, so stop looking for answers."
Totally agree.
> On the contrary, "basic creationism" is exactly what is being pushed, under
> the guise of "intelligent design." Many proponents are very careful to omit
> the G-word from their propaganda, but no one doubts that they're pushing
> creation in accordance with Genesis.
So, that makes me really wonder exactly what in the hell they mean to teach? I
mean, it took us like 30 minutes to go through Genesis's story in school, and
that's actually got *SOME* material. How can you spend more than 2 minutes on
basic creationism? Any links you know of about what the hell they specifically
want?
> Well, I graduated from high school in eastern Pennsylvania in 89.
I was class of '94 in Massachusetts-- Biology class in 91-92, I think. We spent
a good week or more learning about how genes are passed down, how Darwin came up
with his theories, some studies that were done on heredity, and how it was
believed to tie into some of the biological tree. Only reason I remember we
spent more than a week on it was that our teacher actually made a note of it in
class; how she was spending *far* more time on evolution than creationism.
> > > Why not teach that Jesus personally stopped Stalin from dropping the A-Bomb
> > > on Tokyo, and then let kids decide?
> >
> > Because there isn't any real contention on that. Nobody's saying that
> > happened, nobody believes it's a valid theory. At least to my knowledge. But
> > if enough people believed it were true and advocated its teaching? Sure,
> > present it as an option.
>
> But would anyone qualify as a "believer" in that case, or would you require
> the believer to be some kind of authority on the subject? I would certainly
> hope the latter; otherwise I need gather only a few hundred signatures in
> order to enshrine Holocaust denial in the local curriculum.
Uh, if it were up to me? I'd have to do it on a case-by-case basis. Either way
would suffice, but it'll probably go down with less signatures if you've got
more authorities. And a few hundred probably wouldn't do it for me, unless I
maybe I knew they were all local or something, in a town of a couple thousand.
> > 2) They're worth exposing kids to because the theories are real-world
> > (regardless of their validity)
>
> Fair enough, but then it's a question of context. Creationism exists as a
> myth in the real world, but that doesn't mean it should be taught as science.
> As I mentioned before, it could be included in a Comparative Religion class,
> for example.
And I agree-- Ideally I think I'd put creationism elsewhere, with some mention
of it in science class as more of a sidenote to evolution. IE, while teaching
evolution, say "Oh, by the way, there's this other thing called creationism".
That kind of thing.
> > 4) People will be less likely to pull their kids out of school because
> > you're not teaching their beliefs (hence potentially more educated youth)
>
> This is dangerously close to suggesting that even false education is better
> than none, and I'm afraid I can't agree. Sure, the kids might learn math
> even as they're learning pseudoscience, but that's an unworthy compromise.
I'd agree if I were proposing teaching *only* creationism-- but when teaching
both, I'd say that's certainly better than kids getting no education whatsoever.
The question is really how many kids get pulled out of school so that this is a
problem? I can't actually evaluate that, but I'll still argue that it's a
potential reason for teaching both in school.
> The goal of education should be to provide as much factual (ie., verified
> with a great deal of certainty) knowledge as is possible while giving
> students the tools by which to assess information critically.
I think I'd switch the precedence of those two items, but I think that's
generally correct. I might also throw in some social aspects as well like
'learning to work with others', and 'preparing for life in general in the real
world'. Anyway, I'd put the creationism in more as a 'learning to think
critically' tool than something factual.
> > 5) You can present both arguments, ensuring that kids can decide for
> > themselves on areas of contention.
>
> Again, this works only if children are given adequate tools for making such a
> decision, and currently they are not.
Interesting, cuz I'd say they are. Of course, the problem I think lies in
motivation as well. I think many kids couldn't care less. When they care, they
make the right decision. When they don't, they'll believe whatever you tell
them. And there's half my problem. I don't want kids thinking evolution is right
"because I say so". By presenting a choice, it seems to me more like you're
forcing them to decide (which I think they'll do correctly) rather than just
accepting whatever it is you tell them.
> > > I am confident that children will not judge the competing theories
> > > accurately as long as a motivated and organized religious group seeks to
> > > promote its views in the classroom to the exclusion of actual science.
> >
> > Are we actually talking about the exclusion of evolutionary theory being
> > taught? Provided that evolution is excluded, yes, I agree. But if both are
> > included?
>
> Both included as science? No dice, because creationism is not science.
I just was asking about what you meant above. You said "the exclusion of actual
science". Did you mean to imply that evolution was excluded nearly 100%? Or did
you mean "reduction" as in "to make way for teaching about creationism as well"?
> If your contention is that creationism does qualify as science, then can you
> summarize a few of its theories and the experiments that have confirmed these
> theories? Can you also give me a bibliography of peer-reviewed journals in
> which these theories have been published? Please describe the predictions
> that have been made based on creationist theory and how these have been borne
> out by observation and experiment.
>
> You can't of course, because no such theories of creationism exist.
Heehee, not that you would deem "sufficient" :) So in that sense, you're right,
because you personally can't be convinced. I'm sure I could come up with a
creationist theory that fit existing evidence, or find an interpretation that
did, but you'd never buy it, because you'd laugh off the "proof" as negligable
and the conclusions as ludicrous. But I maintain that nonetheless, while I would
agree with you, the theory would be no less valid, and might technically fit
into the realm of science, if only barely.
> If creationism is removed from the science classroom, I doubt that any sort
> of perceived prohibition would drive the students to a defiant embrace of
> creationism.
!
I would. "Say, son, what are you studying?" "Darwin's theory of evolution." "Oh,
that load of crap? Lemme tell you..." It's not necessarily the children's
defiant influence to be worried about.
> Holy smoke, we've reached an agreement!
Dang. I should just bring up Myers Briggs again, then :)
> Also, although you mention it only in passing, I caution that the so-called
> shortcomings of evolution are much less significant than creationists like to
> pretend. The theory itself has few shortcomings, insofar as its predictions
> have been borne out *and* it explains observed phenomena better than any
> other theory.
Oh, my point there was more that students should question evolutionary theory
just like they should question everything else. And if we get them to do that, I
have no doubt that questioning creationism would raise FAR more doubts than
questioning evolutionary theory.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
