Post by thread:[OT]Whether school children will learn science <-

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]Whether school children will learn science <- '
2005\05\20@024901 by Russell McMahon

> "This is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue," he said. > "There isn't a scientific issue about the validity of evolution. The > only issue is whether schoolchildren will learn real science or > not." > -- Adrian Melott I've no idea of the original context. This promises to be short and brutal. But lets see if the rule set allows an interesting discussion. Observing the Newton tag dictat the tag is now [OT] Observing the Newton 'non specific-word usage with any amount of innuendo allows vast lattitude' dictat, I attempt, hopefully successfully [:-) ] to employ non specific words. Responding to sig lines is seldom a good idea. I found this one motivational. It seems to embody such truth although, after having looked at the owners other siglines, presumably semi-randomly chosen from a file, it may be intended to say other that what it seems to. Messieur Melott seems to have grasped what escapes so many. There are some issues which are scientifically treatable. And there are some which are not. Being untreatable by Science does not make a subject bad or wrong or unable to be dealt with. It simply means that attempts to use the tools or trappings of science, or to use science as a shield or haven is inappropriate. Insistence that one is "doing science" when such cannot be the case, all too soon instead becomes "doing religion" (in the proper sense of the term), although those who do this would be appalled at the suggestion and fight tooth and nail to deny it. If one wishes to insist that one is "doing Science" one must first define what Science is. Science comes in two flavours 1. A la Popper 2. All the rest If you do not subscribe to Popper's definition then you can do anything at all and call it science. Just as Marxism is unfalsifiable as everything it sees it can explain in terms of its theories, so "science" not according to Popper can explain anything it wishes, justify any conclusion, make warm and comfy and satisfying and unquestionable the most derelict of positions. Just because a subject has been given such "religious" treatment it does not follow that it has no merit or that the positions which it takes are untenable. But there is every chance that if there are such deficiencies they will never be spotted, or will become evident only when the foundations have long since crumbled away and the emperor's new clothes are very very clearly missing. Such religious adherence benefits nobody but the high priests and those who gain financially or academically from the charade. SO - will children learn real science or not? A good question. If they are taught that Science is as Popper says and the rest is flavours of religion, and that there is no demerit in this being so, then they will indeed learn real Science. But if they are told, as they all too often are, that the theory of X and the postulate of Y are facts most true, to be bowed down to, and worshipped, and set in stone and most certainly not to be questioned in any way, and that THIS is science, then no, they will not learn real science. And the world will be poorer for it. As indeed it already is. Russell McMahon

2005\05\20@072800 by Russell McMahon

Replying to my own post :-) >> "This is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue," he said. >> "There isn't a scientific issue about the validity of evolution. >> The >> only issue is whether schoolchildren will learn real science or >> not." >> -- Adrian Melott > > I've no idea of the original context. But, as expected, Google says it came from this context. http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=162325 The sad / funny / bizarre thing is that this man is hawking religion to combat religion and doesn't even know it. He thinks he's hawking science but, alas, doesn't properly know what science is. Or, he does know, but is happy that non-Popper Science is OK as a foundation from which to teach children "real science". Very sad. RM

2005\05\20@080154 by Gerhard Fiedler

Russell McMahon wrote: >> "This is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue," he said. >> "There isn't a scientific issue about the validity of evolution. The >> only issue is whether schoolchildren will learn real science or >> not." >> -- Adrian Melott > > I've no idea of the original context. Neither do I, but I think it is very obvious that everything children learn in school (especially in public schools) is (among others) a political matter. Unless it is a private school, not regulated by government at all, in which case the absence of any regulation is also (among others) a political matter. > SO - will children learn real science or not? > A good question. > If they are taught that Science is as Popper says and the rest is > flavours of religion, and that there is no demerit in this being so, > then they will indeed learn real Science. The other question is what does this matter. Popper is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. One among many others. He has his view(s) of what makes a postulate "scientific"; others have other views. IMO, if one wants to talk to others about science in any sensible way, it is not enough to know Popper's view; you need to know a few more, most notably the more common uses of "scientific" in politics and marketing of most "developed" nations, and then, of course, one's own position. Science is only one of so many concepts one may or may not have a firm position on. Of course it's more important than a few other concepts to some of us here, given what our interests are. But I'm pretty sure one can have a happy, fulfilled and in other ways plentiful life without ever getting to a deep understanding of the implications of what may be called "science" and what not. Even without ever having thought about this. Popper himself says that the problem of limiting "science" is not one of meaning, but one of demarcation. But the importance of this demarcation is not quite clear, and Popper himself seems not to be of much help in establishing it. To get back to the subject: I don't think you can "learn science". One maybe can "learn Science", but that's more about a religion (in that it postulates a superior truth that is not to be questioned). As there is no real common meaning of "science", everybody has to create his own, and this makes it something you can't learn. The moment you want to teach "science", that is, telling people what is and what is not science, you kind of work against your own bases. As it has happened throughout history, and I have no doubt that this isn't the end of it -- most substantial enhancements of our "scientific universe" were initially thought to be not scientific. What IMO you can and should have an opportunity to learn (at least to a certain degree) is autonomous thinking. Which may be what you meant, basically, just that I think this has not much to do with Popper (other than that he apparently was quite good at it) or science. But then, this is not really in the interest of most governments (or stockholders of private schools), and it's over the top of most people -- half of the people, and as such probably half of the teachers, are below average in it :) So there you get a conflict of interest, and a limitation in capacity, and it's probably not realistic to expect this to happen in a school in a planned and thorough form. Gerhard

2005\05\20@100724 by Mike Hord

> > "This is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue," he said. > > "There isn't a scientific issue about the validity of evolution. The > > only issue is whether schoolchildren will learn real science or > > not." > > -- Adrian Melott > > I've no idea of the original context. > > This promises to be short and brutal. > But lets see if the rule set allows an interesting discussion. Or long and brutal. Did we not learn from the "ACLU Opposes School Children Thinking for Themselves" thread? {Quote hidden}> Observing the Newton tag dictat the tag is now [OT] > Observing the Newton 'non specific-word usage with any amount of > innuendo allows vast lattitude' dictat, I attempt, hopefully > successfully [:-) ] to employ non specific words. > > Responding to sig lines is seldom a good idea. > > I found this one motivational. It seems to embody such truth although, > after having looked at the owners other siglines, presumably > semi-randomly chosen from a file, it may be intended to say other that > what it seems to. I can tell you aren't from the USA, Russell. ;-) Anyone in the US who pays even cursory attention to this "issue" would IMMEDIATELY know the context of this quote: on one side are people who believe that ca. 2 billion years ago, some goop began to self-replicate, and that all life on Earth descended from that puddle of pudding, while on the other, there are those who believe that sometime within the last 6000 years or so, God spoke four fateful words and from that, all else has arisen. The middle ground, which I am reasonably certain Russell inhabits and I am also reasonably sure he overestimates the population of, is a barren wasteland. "Science" has "proven" evolution, as far as the first group above is concerned (call them SHs). The CFs (other group) believe that such teaching will "corrupt" their children, taking them off of the path their parents have chosen. <snipping a good deal> > SO - will children learn real science or not? > A good question. > If they are taught that Science is as Popper says and the rest is > flavours of religion, and that there is no demerit in this being so, > then they will indeed learn real Science. Ideally, school children should be taught little more than the fact that Creation happened before any living human was around, and that no written records have survived since then. They should then be taught basic biology of modern, observable things, and after a few years, when they have a good grasp on how living things work, be exposed to the fossil record, and be allowed to form hypotheses on their own at that point. At this point, the most critical juncture occurs: under NO circumstances should a teacher state that the hypothesis brought forth by a student is "wrong". > But if they are told, as they all too often are, that the theory of X > and the postulate of Y are facts most true, to be bowed down to, and > worshipped, and set in stone and most certainly not to be questioned > in any way, and that THIS is science, then no, they will not learn > real science. And the world will be poorer for it. As indeed it > already is. ! Note that the way things ARE done is precisely the opposite of the above. It is very difficult to "unlearn" the "facts" of "science" which have been drilled into your head at an early age. Mike H.

2005\05\20@101713 by Matthew Miller

Hi Russell, Yep, it looks like I'm hitting the part of my sig database that I collected while reading about the evolution/intelligent design debate in Kanses. On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 11:27:53PM +1200, Russell McMahon wrote: {Quote hidden}> Replying to my own post :-) > > >>"This is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue," he said. > >>"There isn't a scientific issue about the validity of evolution. > >>The > >>only issue is whether schoolchildren will learn real science or > >>not." > >> -- Adrian Melott > > > >I've no idea of the original context. > > But, as expected, Google says it came from this context. > > www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=162325 > > The sad / funny / bizarre thing is that this man is hawking religion > to combat religion and doesn't even know it. He thinks he's hawking > science but, alas, doesn't properly know what science is. Or, he does > know, but is happy that non-Popper Science is OK as a foundation from > which to teach children "real science". Very sad. Like Gerhard mentioned, there isn't a hard and fast line dividing science from non-science. It's a matter of degree for some topics, things like SETI I would put right in the middle of these two classifications. I disagree that Melott is pushing a religion though. Anyway, it looks that in 15 years fewer bio-tech companies will be locating in Kanses than other states with better educated citizens. Take care, Matthew. -- "Creationists don't want equal time. They want all the time there is." -- Isaac Asimov

2005\05\20@105910 by Russell McMahon

> Like Gerhard mentioned, there isn't a hard and fast line dividing > science > from non-science. It's a matter of degree for some topics, things > like SETI More anon maybe. Quick comment. I say there is a hard and fast dividing line [:-)]. Popper agrees (or, rather, of course, I agree with him). Science is where you can model/predict/test and repeat ad infinitum (or nauseum) and refine your model. Everything else is where you can't. I'm calling that "religion" - it of course doesn't HAVE to be religion BUT, when people find that their favourite endeavour falls outside the balliwick of Popper's hard science they often start to very stridently demand that their favourite past-time (or life's work) is-too! real science and if you don't agree they will take their toys and go play somewhere else, AND take away your funding grants, AND anyway your religious so what would you know anyway? (and your mother wears army boots). Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled by Science as he knows it. It can of course be handled by religion of whatever shape and form one wishes to create to defend it and explain it. Puddles of primordial goop or young earth divine Creator are equally good religious views as a starting point. One or the other is more likely to correspond to what really happened, but that's not the point. The point I started on was that Melott, in seeking to defend children against religion, made a superb statement about science, but had already when he made it fallen into the arms of an equally ardent and un-Popperish religion which thinks itself to be "real-science". Whether it's right or not about what it believes is not the issue. If you reject the scientific method and Popper's postulates you are awash on a sea of don't-know, and anything you wish to claim may be justified by adjusting the rules. Popper followers can NEVER say "we know", only that their model is getting better over time and they don't THINK that it's going to break any time soon. > I would put right in the middle of these two classifications. I > disagree > that Melott is pushing a religion though. Not as he realises it, Jim. > Anyway, it looks that in 15 years fewer bio-tech companies will be > locating > in Kanses than other states with better educated citizens. beter educated? - maybe. But if better education is compelling children to accept religion as science then this may be far more of a phantasm than you might expect. > "Creationists don't want equal time. They want all the time there > is." > -- Isaac Asimov Which of course they can't be allowed to have any of, as Asimov and co *knew* that it all belonged to them. I used to respect him until I got to know him* - or maybe it was just that he got crankier as he got older ? (from a vast distance) RM

2005\05\20@120650 by Lindy Mayfield

I'm definitely not on the side of the religious zealots. I'm curious about your clear distinctions, though. There have been some great books that linked modern physics with ancient writings, and I tend see things that way as well. Do I think that science and religion will ever come together? No way! But I think modern science, especially quantum physics, and the knowledge from thousands of years ago do share much from the perspective of science. Of course, one cannot find it with "literal" interpretations of sacred works. Have you given such things much thought, Russell? I'm remembering books I've read like The Tao of Physics, and Hyperspace by Michio Kaku and perhaps The Dancing Wu Li Masters and Gödel, Escher, Bach, as well as many by one of my favorites Joseph Campbell. (Also Karl Jung, but I find admit he is difficult to read for me.) {Original Message removed}

2005\05\20@123605 by Wouter van Ooijen

I agree that there is a hard division line, but > Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled by > Science as he knows it. I am not so sure. Popper is all about falsification. If a theory does predictions which can be matched against the reality around us, it is fasifyable and hence science. The trouble is that this division line runs right through some things: most humanities (sociology, pedagogy, political studies (!), religion studies (!)) have some parts that are definitely science and some parts that are definitely not. I think this division line also runs right through all the stuff people classify under 'evolution theory'. > Popper followers can NEVER say "we > know", only that their model is getting better over time and they > don't THINK that it's going to break any time soon. Totally true. Popperian scientist can say "this theory is consistent with the current evidence (or that least more consistent than any other available theory)". Religious people can say "this theory (or belief, or ...) is consistent with my innermost conviction." Note that one is outer-world driven, the other is inner-world driven. IMHO neither group can say more, and if they would refrain from claiming more they would never have to disagree on scientific/religious matters because the intersection of the two is empty. Of course that leaves a lot of very important points to disagree on, like topposting versus bottomposting, the right way to store the bytes of an integer, PIC versus AVR, assembler versus HLL, etc. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2005\05\20@124153 by James Newtons Massmind

> Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be > handled by Science as he knows it. It can of course be > handled by religion of whatever shape and form one wishes to > create to defend it and explain it. Puddles of primordial > goop or young earth divine Creator are equally good religious > views as a starting point. One or the other is more likely to > correspond to what really happened, but that's not the point. Eh? So you don't feel that the breeding of animals or plants to produce new strains, behaviors, traits, is evolution on the short term? How exactly is it that we are NOT able to see the effects of evolution and test the hypothesis to prove or disprove it? I thought that we had pretty much tested it to death. --- James.

2005\05\20@124948 by Gerhard Fiedler

Russell McMahon wrote: >> Like Gerhard mentioned, there isn't a hard and fast line dividing >> science from non-science. It's a matter of degree for some topics, >> things like SETI > I say there is a hard and fast dividing line [:-)]. > Popper agrees (or, rather, of course, I agree with him). > Science is where you can model/predict/test and repeat ad infinitum > (or nauseum) and refine your model. That's what Popper calls science. That's also a pretty young definition. As everything young, it still has the test of time in front of it. And Popper's definition of science is not "scientific" by his own definition... so what does that say about it? The one obvious question here is that of meaning. What does it mean whether something is "science" or not? Popper himself says that whether something is science or not (in his sense) has no implication on anything else (for example, on meaningfulness or significance); it's merely a matter of whether or not to apply that term. So the question remains: what difference does it make whether you call something "science"? The differences I can see are in government funding, marketing, cheap rhetoric tricks, ... -- stuff of this kind. I can't find much else to which it would make a difference whether something is called "science" or not; more specifically, I can't find anything among these that is important to me. Are these things really important to you? Or is there something else to which it makes a difference whether something is called "science"? I think the more important question is not what is science, but why you want to make that distinction. Without knowing that, it seems kind of futile. Gerhard

2005\05\20@133513 by D. Jay Newman

> > Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be > > handled by Science as he knows it. It can of course be ... > Eh? So you don't feel that the breeding of animals or plants to produce new > strains, behaviors, traits, is evolution on the short term? > > How exactly is it that we are NOT able to see the effects of evolution and > test the hypothesis to prove or disprove it? I thought that we had pretty > much tested it to death. I accept that evolution is the best model we've come up with, so far. However, certain things remain unknown, mainly how different species with different numbers of chromosomes appeared. The battles over that have been hot and dirty among biologists. -- D. Jay Newman ! Polititions and civilations come and spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com ! go but the engineers and machinists http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! make progress

2005\05\20@133551 by Mike Hord

> > Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be > > handled by Science as he knows it. It can of course be > > handled by religion of whatever shape and form one wishes to > > create to defend it and explain it. Puddles of primordial > > goop or young earth divine Creator are equally good religious > > views as a starting point. One or the other is more likely to > > correspond to what really happened, but that's not the point. > > > Eh? So you don't feel that the breeding of animals or plants to produce new > strains, behaviors, traits, is evolution on the short term? > > How exactly is it that we are NOT able to see the effects of evolution and > test the hypothesis to prove or disprove it? I thought that we had pretty > much tested it to death. Evolution, with a capitol "E", is the theory that man descended from apes descended from thecodonts descended from reptiles etc. etc. That's the theory the CFs oppose. It should be noted that even the most ardent CFs generally accept that evolution (lowercase "e") is a real force for biological change. They simply refuse to believe that it could be the origin of life. Lowercase evolution is a damn good theory with minimal holes. Uppercase Evolution is a bit more tenuous, and great deal harder to "prove" (or at least, stringently test without finding holes). The conflict here is that SHs desire ONLY Evolution be taught, while CFs don't see how evolution can be taught without condoning Evolution. It should be noted at this point that I've never heard a great argument for Evolution, which necessarily beats hands down other possible origins rather than primordial ooze. Russell's point is that believing that the origin of life on Earth is a puddle of goop is no more scientific than believing that it originated with a small crop of organisms created by a Supreme Being or deposited here by a meteor or by an intelligent alien culture. Those are four possibilities which, AFAIK, are equally possible if not equally likely. Or, maybe God created the Universe 30 seconds ago, and all the things we think we know and remember are just thoughts planted there by Him. Or maybe he created the Universe 6000 years ago and buried dinosaur skeletons to test the faithful. Or he created the Universe 15 billion years ago, and those preaching to the contrary are fools. No one really knows, although it seems unlikely to me that dinosaurs roamed the Earth 6000 years ago and were driven extinct, buried, and fossilized in the intervening time, as some of the more fringe CFs claim. Mike H.

2005\05\20@140806 by Matthew Miller

Hi Russell, On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 02:56:58AM +1200, Russell McMahon wrote: > I say there is a hard and fast dividing line [:-)]. > Popper agrees (or, rather, of course, I agree with him). > Science is where you can model/predict/test and repeat ad infinitum > (or nauseum) and refine your model. > Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled by > Science as he knows it. I don't believe that you understand evolution too well. Evolution (and that word covers a lot of ground) does provide models, makes predictions, and can be tested. Why do think it doesn't do these things? Do you think geology is a religion as well? > >Anyway, it looks that in 15 years fewer bio-tech companies will be > >locating > >in Kanses than other states with better educated citizens. > > beter educated? - maybe. But if better education is compelling > children to accept religion as science then this may be far more of a > phantasm than you might expect. I find it really odd you calling evolution a religion (this feeling comes mostly from reading your posts on the piclist). I will grant you that evolution isn't as hard a science as partical physics, but only by the smallest degree. A religion isn't based on facts and observation, but on dogma. Evolutionary theory is nothing like a religion. Take care, Matthew. -- Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. -- W. Somerset Maugham

2005\05\20@141415 by Peter

On Fri, 20 May 2005, Russell McMahon wrote: > The sad / funny / bizarre thing is that this man is hawking religion to > combat religion and doesn't even know it. He thinks he's hawking science but, > alas, doesn't properly know what science is. Or, he does know, but is happy > that non-Popper Science is OK as a foundation from which to teach children > "real science". Very sad. Religion is a *belief* in the fallacity of science to explain it. Science is a *belief* in the fallacity of $DEITY to explain it. You tell me which is wrong. Peter

2005\05\20@142211 by Matthew Miller

Hi Mike, On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 09:07:24AM -0500, Mike Hord wrote: > Ideally, school children should be taught little more than the fact > that Creation happened before any living human was around, and > that no written records have survived since then. I've seen others mention this in debates. It is wrong though. There do exist records concerning creation. (Evolution has nothing to do with creation though.) The most well known record of creation is the cosmic background radiation. On this planet, the radioactive dating of rocks is another. It is not necessary to have written records or the presence of humans to know about the past. > At this point, the most critical juncture > occurs: under NO circumstances should a teacher state that the > hypothesis brought forth by a student is "wrong". I agree with this. What the teacher should do is ask the student to present evidence for their hypothesis, both for and against. This will hopefully get the student to do some good thinking. ;) Take care, Matthew. -- "Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation, or creed." -- Bertrand Russell

2005\05\20@145202 by Bob Blick

>> At this point, the most critical juncture >> occurs: under NO circumstances should a teacher state that the >> hypothesis brought forth by a student is "wrong". Wrong! Students waste everyone's time when they challenge the teacher. Teachers don't have the luxury of that much time. Also, one of the things students need to do is learn to respect authority, and how to get along with others. Remember, students are in school to learn, and they are doing it under the guidance of their teacher. If the teacher wants the students opinion, he/she will ask for it. I am constantly reminding young people that the best way to get good grades and also to get the most out of their education is to figure out what the teacher wants and to give it to them. Resisting education is not the way to get an education. If a student wants to have a debate, he/she should get on the debate team(or join the OTlist). -Bob

2005\05\20@151636 by gacrowell

> -----Original Message----- > From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam@spam@mit.edu > [piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Hord > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:36 AM > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [OT]Whether school children will learn science >... Or, maybe God created the > Universe 30 seconds ago, and all the things we think we > know and remember are just thoughts planted there by > Him. That's the progression I always use: 15 billion, 6,000, 30 seconds?, 3 seconds?, 3 microseconds? Why not? If you postulate Creation, why would there have been a preferred time, why not right now.... No,.. Now, ... No... NOW, wait for it...... NOW!!! ... Or perhaps no creation, just a passing thought... The other thing I always wonder is that if there is a God, who created Him? If God denies there is a higher being, does that mean He lacks faith? If faith isn't good enough for God, why should we bother with it? "You can't fool me, its turtles all the way down." GC

2005\05\20@153110 by James Newtons Massmind

> Evolution, with a capitol "E", is the theory that man > descended from apes descended from thecodonts descended from > reptiles etc. etc. > That's the theory the CFs oppose. It should be noted that > even the most ardent CFs generally accept that evolution > (lowercase "e") is a real force for biological change. They > simply refuse to believe that it could be the origin of life. Ahh... So Evolution can't be proven (or more accuratly, not disproven) because we can't go back in time? I guess I can see that point. You can't say (as a Popper head) that _E_volution could not account for us being here but you can say that _e_volution has not yet been disproven. So _E_volution is not Popper type science but _e_volution is. The point then is that we can never know where we came from. CF or ES or Pan Sperma or whatever theory you like is pointless to argue given what we have for looking into the past. So we should kill this thread and get back to building our time machines, right? Schools should teach _e_volution, the Popper method of science and leave the unknowable to those who don't know. --- James.

2005\05\20@154120 by Mike Hord

Good response; it underscores a number of problems with the system as it is now. > >> At this point, the most critical juncture > >> occurs: under NO circumstances should a teacher state that the > >> hypothesis brought forth by a student is "wrong". > > Wrong! Students waste everyone's time when they challenge the teacher. > Teachers don't have the luxury of that much time. A flaw in the system. Teacher salary should be such that those who want to teach (like me) would consider doing it, and the class size to teacher ratio should be such that a teacher has the time to help a student see the flaws in his/her own hypotheses. > Also, one of the things students need to do is learn to respect authority, > and how to get along with others. And one of the things students need to learn is that just because a person has authority over you doesn't convey correctness upon every decision or "fact" that person brings forth. This is important to learn because someday, those students may BE the authority and they need to respect that their subordinates may be right once in a while. When "because I'm the boss and I said so" becomes a substitute for reasoned consideration of the options, disaster results. > Remember, students are in school to learn, and they are doing it under the > guidance of their teacher. If the teacher wants the students opinion, > he/she will ask for it. Which is reasonable, in some subjects (language, mathematics, phys ed). However, when teaching science, critical thinking and the ability to form, test, and discard hypotheses is of the utmost importance. These are skills which the current system of presentation and rote memorization subverts. > I am constantly reminding young people that the best way to get good > grades and also to get the most out of their education is to figure out > what the teacher wants and to give it to them. Resisting education is not > the way to get an education. This isn't about resisting education. It's about learning how to learn. I truly believe that learning how to learn is no longer anywhere in schools. Learning to memorize and regurgitate is, of course. > If a student wants to have a debate, he/she should get on the debate > team(or join the OTlist). It's not about debate, it's about encouraging the student to figure out for him/herself why he or she is wrong, rather than telling him/her. I read a story by Isaac Asimov which pretty remarkably captures this situation: http://www.abelard.org/asimov.htm We need to decide, and soon, whether we want students to learn, or if it is adequate for them to be "taped" (see the above story for explanation). Mike H.

2005\05\20@154416 by Mike Hord

> Schools should teach _e_volution, the Popper method of science and leave the > unknowable to those who don't know. BINGO! And if all those little minds filled with the goodness of the scientific method come around to Evolution, that adds some credence to it (but of course, still doesn't PROVE it!). Mike H.

2005\05\20@155255 by Russell McMahon

2005\05\20@161855 by Dave VanHorn

At 01:52 PM 5/20/2005, Bob Blick wrote: > >> At this point, the most critical juncture > >> occurs: under NO circumstances should a teacher state that the > >> hypothesis brought forth by a student is "wrong". > >Wrong! Students waste everyone's time when they challenge the teacher. >Teachers don't have the luxury of that much time. Unfortunately, teachers don't always teach the truth. A friend of mine is taking university level electronics classes, where 63/37 solder is "junk". The instructor binned a roll during class, preferring 60/40. He also believes in putting the solder on the iron first, then burning the flux off, then applying that to the cold joint. I was wondering, in 2nd grade, why my friend and I were always picked last for everything. I clearly remember the answer, "You gots ta expec that if you're goin to hang around with that black child.".. I decided then and there, who would pick my friends. I had a math instructor dismissed once. He had a habit of knocking points off for perfectly legit things that he "didn't like". I took it to the department head, and found some others that he had done similarly to. Apparently he had been sent down to our comm college from the big one, for similar things, and he was dismissed. >Also, one of the things students need to do is learn to respect authority, >and how to get along with others. And when to say "shove it". >Remember, students are in school to learn, and they are doing it under the >guidance of their teacher. If the teacher wants the students opinion, >he/she will ask for it. Sometimes you need to break the rules.

2005\05\20@162655 by Matthew Miller

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 07:47:49AM +1200, Russell McMahon wrote: > Speciation by random mutation (using natural selection as it's engine) > is TOTALLY different, is not within Popperian Science Russell, would you explain WHY speciation doesn't fit in your view of Popperian science? Thanks, Matthew -- Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel.

2005\05\20@163434 by James Newtons Massmind

> Wrong! Students waste everyone's time when they challenge the teacher. > Teachers don't have the luxury of that much time. I have two reactions to that statement, both quite strong, one for and one against. Complex, aint I? On the one hand, yes, teachers are currently overburdened and have been forced into the position of drill sergeants, leading a little group of soldiers onward, lockstep, to the conclusions accepted by society. And perhaps it is true that many kids don't have what it takes to be of value if they question too much. There do seem to be the "epsilon minus" types around more and more and society protects us from ourselves more and more. Less chlorine in the gene pool, you know. On the other hand, it makes me sick to see kids being smashed into the "Obedience to Authority" mind mold. Anyone who has read that book would probably feel the same way. See: http://www.massmind.org/techref/other/anarchist.htm and the little section about 3/4 down that discusses "Obedience to Authority" by Stanley Milgram > Also, one of the things students need to do is learn to > respect authority, and how to get along with others. How about "how to question authority with respect" or "how to get along without loosing yourself"? How about reading Gandhi or watching movies like "Spy Game" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266987/ or reading "Star Diaries" by Stanislaw Lem http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156849054 How about knowing when to stand up and say "no" when everyone around you is turning into a mob? "When they came for the..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came How about "being too dumb to know it couldn't be done?" Like the 3M post it notes guy? Did you flunk Albert Einstein? Did you put "Rain Man" in an institution? Do you know who Daniel "Brainman" Tammet is? > Remember, students are in school to learn, and they are doing > it under the guidance of their teacher. If the teacher wants > the students opinion, he/she will ask for it. Deep breaths, calm ocean, must control fists of death... Yeeesssssss..... That is true, Dogbert. Teachers must cover the subject matter and explain what the society has compiled as a base of knowledge. But that is also why MY kids are home schooled. And why we DO ask them for their opinions. And that is also why most "engineers" turned out by our current school system are... Lets see... How can I put this politely... Uninspired? Unable to think outside the box? Robots? > I am constantly reminding young people that the best way to > get good grades and also to get the most out of their > education is to figure out what the teacher wants and to give > it to them. Resisting education is not the way to get an education. You wouldn't want them to LEARN anything would you? No, just give the prof a blow job and wave that sheep skin high? Awww come on! The goal of a teacher has to be to allow as much independent thought as they have time and resources to support while still covering the syllabus. > If a student wants to have a debate, he/she should get on the > debate team(or join the OTlist). Actually, s/he should have an active hobby, publish what they have found for themselves, and perhaps turn that hobby into a solution that makes them rich. If they only know what everyone else knows, how are they ever going to come up with something unique and valuable? --- James.

2005\05\20@181959 by Wouter van Ooijen

> Also, one of the things students need to do is learn to > respect authorithy. How can they respect authority without first learning to recognise it? Personally I have no respect at all for institutional authority (the kind that just says or is said to have authority), and a deep respect for the more rare form of authority. I learned both at school :) Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2005\05\20@192705 by William Chops Westfield

On May 20, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Bob Blick wrote: > Teachers don't have the luxury of that much time. > That's what bothers me most about the whole debate. You know, in 12 years of primary public school, we spent maybe 20 hours "learning" about evolution, and most of that was focused on natural selection (which isn't particularly under debate) and phylogeny (families of living creatures, also not particularly under debate.) Yes, there's probably a vague and not-very-scientific extrapolation thrown in "man evolved from slime in a similar manner", but it's pretty much far from the focus of that 'unit' of science education. Or at least it was 30 years ago; maybe my school was already sensitive to the issue, or maybe it just hadn't become "an issue to fight over" till later. We had more exposure to "the battle" in english class where we read "Inherit the Wind" (which I seem to recall being more about legal restrictions on teaching than a religion vs science thing...) If the parents embroiled in the controversy spent half the time they spend on "the fight" helping their kids with less controversial science subjects, they wouldn't have to worry about whether their kids were "learning science" or not. BillW

2005\05\21@040944 by Russell McMahon

From: "Bob Blick" <.....bblickKILLspam.....sonic.net> {Quote hidden}>>> At this point, the most critical juncture >>> occurs: under NO circumstances should a teacher state that the >>> hypothesis brought forth by a student is "wrong". > Wrong! Students waste everyone's time when they challenge the > teacher... > Also, one of the things students need to do is learn to respect > authority, ... > Remember, students are in school to learn, ... > ... the best way to get good grades and also to get the most > out of their education is to figure out > what the teacher wants and to give it to them. Resisting education > is not > the way to get an education ... > If a student wants to have a debate, he/she should get on the debate > team (or join the OTlist). When I first read this I assumed it was finally honed tongue in cheek sarcasm. But it was done so well that I had another read to make sure I wasn't getting it wrong and to check whether Bob was in fact serious. I convinced myself that my original impression was correct. I almost wrote to Bob congratulating him on the fine balance achieved. I have therefore been rather surprised to see the number of respondents who SEEM to assume that he was totally serious and replying accordingly. Maybe everyone else is also getting into the spirit of things and their finely judged sarcasm has escaped me. But I think not. But it's added marvellously to the breadth of discussion as people take it both ways. What's impressed me too is Bob "laying low" and not responding as his comments have been misunderstood. A lesson for me there I'm sure :-). Russell McMahon

2005\05\21@075347 by Gerhard Fiedler

Matthew Miller wrote: >> Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled by >> Science as he knows it. > > I don't believe that you understand evolution too well. Evolution (and > that word covers a lot of ground) does provide models, makes > predictions, and can be tested. Why do think it doesn't do these things? > Do you think geology is a religion as well? In Popper's sense (to which I don't subscribe), "science" requires a theory that makes reasonably precise predictions so that directed observations can be made that could falsify the theory. Evolution with a capital E is not a theory that makes predictions, it is an interpretation of history, a claim to a certain reality. It doesn't say that life on this planet could have originated through evolution (with a lower case e), but it claims that it has. It is not a theory that makes predictions precise enough to be tested. Gerhard

2005\05\21@090015 by Russell McMahon

>>> Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled >>> by >>> Science as he knows it. >> I don't believe that you understand evolution too well. Or it may be that you don't understand Science too well. Or neither of these :-) It is ***VITAL*** that a distinction is made between 1. natural selection (Popperian treatable) and 2. the generation of life as we know it from entirely inanimate matter, using the processes of natural selection, which is not treatable by Popeprian Science. A very major problem occurs when the term "Evolution" is used to mean the former of these or the combination of the two. Only the latter is in question. The former is unknowable with certainty (as everything is) but the Popperian model is stunningly good. > Evolution (and >> that word covers a lot of ground) and that's a problem > does provide models, makes >> predictions, and can be tested. Why do think it doesn't do these >> things? >> Do you think geology is a religion as well? See my previous post. Look at the history of the theory of Plate Tectonics. Report back. {Quote hidden}> In Popper's sense (to which I don't subscribe), "science" requires a > theory > that makes reasonably precise predictions so that directed > observations can > be made that could falsify the theory. > > Evolution with a capital E is not a theory that makes predictions, > it is an > interpretation of history, a claim to a certain reality. It doesn't > say > that life on this planet could have originated through evolution > (with a > lower case e), but it claims that it has. It is not a theory that > makes > predictions precise enough to be tested. The day that the aliens shut down their FTL drives and decloak in Times Square and announce politely that they've come to see how their directed panspermia experiment is going, and produce the patent papers for DNA, then the theory of evolution will go the way of pre plate tectonics geology overnight. Nobody expects that to happen, including me. But if it did there could be ***NO*** complaint whatsoever from current Theory of Evolution acolytes. The *theory* would be gone in a trice. The fact that it is obvious that this COULD happen (even though it won't ;-) ) makes the point. When it does Crick's book on directed panspermia will be a collectors item. Anyone wanting to get in early can make me an offer for my copy. (It's disappointingly written alas, but this shouldn't affect its value in the circumstances.). RM

2005\05\21@090033 by Russell McMahon

So many excellent points and questions are being raised. I'm both impressed and pleased at the general level of discussion that's being achieved - this usually degenerates into a brawl before the real and useful and science/engineering relevant issues are given a decent airing. Keep it up guys! :-) I'm too busy to spend the hours I'd like to addressing some of the points raised. (Midnight, stuff still due for tomorrow ...). I'll try to leap in with quick comment re questions or comments addressed to me as I can manage. >> I say there is a hard and fast dividing line [:-)]. >> Popper agrees (or, rather, of course, I agree with him). >> Science is where you can model/predict/test and repeat ad infinitum >> (or nauseum) and refine your model. > That's what Popper calls science. That's also a pretty young > definition. As > everything young, it still has the test of time in front of it. That's true. BUT 1. What Popper did was codify what was generally understood. And he drew attention to the fact that there are areas where systematic incremental methodology is possible, and areas where it is not. Again, it's not bad to deal with things in the latter case - it's just that it needs to be recognised which area things fall in. 2. There's no questioning that Popper established that a systematic methodology is possible in some cases. What's in question (by some) is whether being able to deal with something by popper's methods or not is important or relevant. Interestingly, those disciplines where it is possible have embraced "The Scientific Method" with open arms and hearts and regard it as foundational. Those who think less highly of it are liable to be those who cannot use it and who therefore seek to downplay its importance or relevance. > And Popper's definition of science is not "scientific" by his own > definition... > so what does that say about it? I'm not sure that's really a meaningful question (no rudeness intended). His method is not, I think, a model of a system. It's a description of a method intended to evaluate systems. If in fact his definition is a system then I suspect it can be falsified and altered by experimental verification (or not) and altered and ... .[[So far the original model passes all falsification attempts :-) :-) ]] a > The one obvious question here is that of meaning. What does it mean whether > something is "science" or not? b >Popper himself says that whether something > is science or not (in his sense) has no implication on anything else > (for > example, on meaningfulness or significance); it's merely a matter of > whether or not to apply that term. b first. I agree. That's a point I've been making repeatedly. I'm not saying that failing to fall within Popperian [?] Science makes something bad or wrong or less valuable etc - just not "Scientific" a la Popper. BUT > So the question remains: what difference does it make whether you > call > something "science"? Plus "a" above To me the difference is vital when attempting to discover "truth" and "reality". Popper says that systems which are amenable to his method are never knowable with certainty BUT that one can (usually) produce increasinghly good models. He says that systems that are not amenable to his method are never knowable. <long pause while readers wait for the previous comment to be qualified in some way>. There is no qualification to this. Unknowable full stop. We can guess. We can gather information. We can estimate probabilities of success or correctness etc. It may well be that we do really really well. It MAY be that we achieve results that are closer to "reality" than many popperian models. BUT - WE CANNOT TELL. We may be completely and utterly wrong. We cannot tell. We can say that the model we have explains what we observe extremely well. And it may. But it may be utter confabulation. For various reasons we have some people who do NP (non Popper) religion-science holding up their results as the absolute anseers to reality while simultaneously deriding people with other flavours of religion for their naievety and unscientific approach. we also have some of the latter being tempted to denigrate all science because they fail to understand that the derision of those who criticise them is without basis or reason and that they are all in the same boat. There are also problems between the popeerian Scientists and the "people with other flavours of religion" but these have a different basis. True Popperian Science happily recognises that it and True religion (in all forms) are orthogonal and vice versa and both coexist happily and get on with their respective jobs. Which form of science is which is important to me so that I can tell which is the proper way of relating it to "other flavours of religion". For NPS the approach is "we're all in the same boat". For PS it's "we can't see each other (but we can still be friends)". Some one asked if I regarded Geology as "religion". Prior to Plate Tectonics becoming the flavour of the century there was another theory that explained geological observations. It was elegant, convincing, did an excellent job of explaining what we see around us. And it was overthrown in a decade or so by plate tectonics and is now utterly discredited and discarded. Anyone proposing anything based on this theory nowadays would be treated with scorn. It took the plate tectonicites about 4 decades to beat in the doors. Throughout this time they were villified, academically shunned and worse. Suddenly they were heros. so, yes, Geology is religion too ;-) - or, to be fair, has many aspects that are still religion given our capabilities*. For the same reasons that other non Popperian sciences are. No problems with 'religion' in this role. But you have to know that's what you are dealing with. I don't expect plate tectonics to be replaced by a more convincing theory and decade soon - but if it was nobody should be surprised. . * [Given time we may have undergrads building tenth scale tectonic plate systems in solar orbit for their finals exams ;-) ). God gets mentioned here NOT as an attempt to draw this conversation into a religious one (which would be almost instantly fatal) but to make a point about a boundary between religion and PS (Popperian Science). FWIW - while "Creation" can not properly be dealt with by PS, God can, if He/She/It wants to be. If God doesn't want to be it's not on, and this makes the process rather uncertain. (eg God not wanting to play that day and God not existing tend to have the same outcomes :-) ). If God chose to invariably and independently verifiably turn water to wine on request given certain conditions being met then this would be entirely testable and modellable by PS.(eg Always given x, y &z except on bank holidays.) > I think the more important question is not what is science, but why > you > want to make that distinction. Without knowing that, it seems kind > of > futile. I hope the above answers that. If not please advise and I'll try again, but shorter :-). Russell McMahon

2005\05\21@101235 by Matthew Miller

Hi Gerhard, On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:53:37AM -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > In Popper's sense (to which I don't subscribe), "science" requires a theory > that makes reasonably precise predictions so that directed observations can > be made that could falsify the theory. Yes, I agree with you and share the same feelings. I am very certain that Science was being done before Popper's ideas. The requirement that a theory be falsifiable is a wonderful tool though, that makes it easy to detect non-scientific ideas. > Evolution with a capital E is not a theory that makes predictions, it is an > interpretation of history, a claim to a certain reality. It doesn't say > that life on this planet could have originated through evolution (with a > lower case e), but it claims that it has. It is not a theory that makes > predictions precise enough to be tested. I disagree with this. Evolution does make predictions which can be tested. If Evolution is only an interpretation of history then the science of geology must be as well. One prediction that Evolution makes, which is easy to test now days, is that similar species have a common ancestor. This can be tested by comparing the species' genome. There are predictions that can be tested, evolution can be falsified, and I've seen no serious arguments to the contrary. Take care, Matthew. -- "We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than others. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen F. Roberts

2005\05\21@102527 by Matthew Miller

Hi Russell, On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:59:12AM +1200, Russell McMahon wrote: > > 2. the generation of life as we know it from entirely inanimate > matter This statement here shows that you don't understand evolution. The creation of life is not something that the theory of Evolution says anything about; these are two completely seperate areas of science! > >Evolution (and > >>that word covers a lot of ground) > > and that's a problem I don't see it as a problem. Why shouldn't something that is complex, with many facets, also be explained by a theory that is more than a simple statement? > >does provide models, makes > >>predictions, and can be tested. Why do think it doesn't do these > >>things? > >>Do you think geology is a religion as well? > > See my previous post. > Look at the history of the theory of Plate Tectonics. > Report back. I'll check it out. Take care, Matthew. -- Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

2005\05\21@121417 by Russell McMahon

>> 2. the generation of life as we know it from entirely inanimate >> matter > This statement here shows that you don't understand evolution. No, it doesn't. But that's a reasonably reasonable conclusion. What it shows is that I was being sloppy in order to be slightly more concise (never very concise :[) ) than otherwise and I decided to take the 'vector sum' of the various requirements. What Evolution actually is, is of course uncertain, as the big gun evolutionists tear each others throats out over what the true faith is. But close enough, as you note, Evolution is the process by which life as we know it was arrived at starting from the first life form(s). > The creation > of life is not something that the theory of Evolution says anything > about; > these are two completely seperate areas of science! Of science indeed. Non Popperian of necessity. So far anyway. One of these days maybe not. Maybe. {Quote hidden}>> >Evolution (and >> >>that word covers a lot of ground) >> and that's a problem > I don't see it as a problem. Why shouldn't something that is > complex, with > many facets, also be explained by a theory that is more than a > simple > statement? What I meant was that the word is used very loosely and variably and without formal definition, and means different things to different people.Parts of what some people means are PS while others are NPs. Knowing what someone is talking about when they say "Evolution": is essential to a sensible discussion. At a minimum it needs to be broken down into. Natural Selection (PS), and speciation from 1st life using natural selection as the mechansiom (NPs.) RM

2005\05\21@124537 by William Chops Westfield

On May 21, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Russell McMahon wrote: > It is ***VITAL*** that a distinction is made between > > 1. natural selection (Popperian treatable) and > > 2. the generation of life as we know it from entirely inanimate > matter, > using the processes of natural selection, which is not treatable by > Popeprian Science. > You *DO* understand that this is NOT the "evolution taught in schools" debate as seen (or perhaps only perceived) in the good old USA. Here, it's seen as "man was uniquely created in the (Christian) God's image and isn't at all related to lesser animals" on one side and ANY mention of "evolution" (lower case "e") on the other. "Creationist science" is viewed by the pro-evolution crowd as more of an attempt to discredit science than as a serious alternative. And that's assuming you've missed the further fringes... I can interpret Russell's position as along the lines of "the leap of faith HERE in Evolution (or the creation of the universe) is not all that much smaller or less a leap of faith than that needed to assume the involvment of a sentient Creator." I can see that as making a fair amount of sense, but that's NOT the usual argument when it comes to evolution in schools... BillW

2005\05\21@151026 by Matthew Miller

Hi Russell, After reading this and your other posts, I think I may agree with your more than I initially thought I did. ;) Yes, Evolution does cover a lot of ground, and parts of it are still being debated (though it is mostly the finer details). What I first took exception to was calling evolution a religion. I don't know about where you live (NZ?), but at the moment here in the US there are very vocal groups attacking science and especially science education. These groups are trying to get religious beliefs (under the guise of "intelligent design") taught in science classes. It is very much an attack, and so far hasn't been too successful thankfully. They have at least not been successful in the cases that have been brought to court. Public opinion is another matter though... While I appreciate Popper's contribution to the philosophy of science, I find your strict interpretation of it to not be very useful. :) I think that a subject can be given a weight regarding where it falls between science and non-science. Check out "The Borderlands of Science" by Michael Shermer. He discusses this boundry detection problem in the first chapter or so. Take care, Matthew. -- "Keep your stickers out of my science book; I don't paste crap in your bible."

2005\05\21@172800 by Juan Garofalo

Two things. First : 'True' Science is far, far older than the (unimportant IMO)doctrines of Karl Popper. Second, adding to what Wouter says : >Popperian scientist can say... [snip] >Religious people can say [snip] >IMHO neither group can say more, and if they would refrain from claiming more they would >never have to disagree on scientific/religious matters because the intersection of the two is empty Deism can be called the 'intersection' of Science and Religion. For instance, "The Age Of Reason" www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reaso n/part1.html I was expecting some American to say something about it since a good deal of the founding fathers were Deists. Best. Juan.

2005\05\22@104209 by Gerhard Fiedler

Matthew Miller wrote: >> Evolution with a capital E is not a theory that makes predictions, it is an >> interpretation of history, a claim to a certain reality. It doesn't say >> that life on this planet could have originated through evolution (with a >> lower case e), but it claims that it has. It is not a theory that makes >> predictions precise enough to be tested. > > I disagree with this. So I think did Russell, in: > The day that the aliens shut down their FTL drives and decloak in > Times Square and announce politely that they've come to see how their > directed panspermia experiment is going, and produce the patent papers > for DNA, then the theory of evolution will go the way of pre plate > tectonics geology overnight. Nobody expects that to happen, including > me. But if it did there could be ***NO*** complaint whatsoever from > current Theory of Evolution acolytes. The *theory* would be gone in a > trice. As well as Matthew in: > Evolution does make predictions which can be tested. If Evolution is only > an interpretation of history then the science of geology must be as > well. One prediction that Evolution makes, which is easy to test now > days, is that similar species have a common ancestor. This can be tested > by comparing the species' genome. There are predictions that can be > tested, evolution can be falsified, and I've seen no serious arguments > to the contrary. After reading this, and respectfully considering, I still would like to hold on to my original view that /any/ science that has interpretation of history as its main objective (or as part of its objective) is not a PS -- at least not that part of it that deals with interpretation of history. I'll cite Popper here (AFAIR the first actual citation of Popper in this thread; I think it's about time :) -- from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html: "These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows. "1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory ¡X if we look for confirmations. "2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory ¡X an event which would have refuted the theory. "3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. "4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. "5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. "6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.") "7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers ¡X for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")" Two of his core criteria are "risky predictions" and testability. WRT explanations or interpretations of history, none of them are usually given. I don't think that waiting for additional evidence to show up counts as "testing". Of course there are some elements in those disciplines that are PS theories, that make predictions that are testable. Plate tectonics can make predictions about future events that can then be observed and checked for consistency with the theory. But how would you test most parts of the theories about how the first moments (well, geological moments :) of our planet were? Same thing about generation of life -- even if we can somehow show that it is possible that simple cells come out of some basic soup, there's no way to say "this is how it was" and stay within PS. I think the main problem with historic disciplines (or the historic elements in disciplines) is that usually they do not strive to find out how it /could have been/ (and stop there); they (well, the people that practice them) rather strive to find out how it /was/. That's not a goal within PS. Any positive assertion that doesn't use "could be" or "is possible that" or similar (and as such is not really a positive assertion) is outside of PS. IMO that's more than a matter of speech. Most misunderstandings about the meaning of science start right there. Gerhard

2005\05\22@130432 by Bill & Pookie

When the math taught in schools start reflecting that "five barley loaves, and two small fishes" can feed five thousand people, we will be in trouble. Bill

2005\05\22@131320 by Gerhard Fiedler

This is a long post (like some of the previous ones on this thread). It's a complex and deep matter, difficult to express in few words, unless you already know who and where you are and what you're doing here :) Russell McMahon wrote: > 2. There's no questioning that Popper established that a systematic > methodology is possible in some cases. What's in question (by some) is > whether being able to deal with something by popper's methods or not is > important or relevant. Interestingly, those disciplines where it is > possible have embraced "The Scientific Method" with open arms and hearts > and regard it as foundational. Those who think less highly of it are > liable to be those who cannot use it and who therefore seek to downplay > its importance or relevance. There are some serious limitations to PS. One is that he seems to imply a number of preconditions that are less than proven. He implies that the world is testable. Of course it seems obvious that it is, but that's not really compatible with some of the results of some PSs. He also implies that the observer has no influence on the observed. May be, may not be. He also implies a time invariance, that things that were falsified yesterday would still be falsified today. And probably a few other things. I don't think it's quite as simple, once you get into the proverbial gory details. He also excludes most of the disciplines that deal with humans. We don't do a great deal of experimenting with humans, so testability lacks pretty severely in those disciplines. Yet these are the areas where we have a more than urgent need to get to a better understanding. Which means for me that whether or not something is PS is getting less and less important, to the same degree as matters that are by definition not treatable by PS are getting more and more important. (Just as an example, to make this a bit clearer, take the discipline Medicine, the definition of "health" and the decisions how to achieve it or getting closer to it. This is clearly outside of PS, and questions like these were in fact the origin of Popper's thinking about the issue, but they are also very clearly matter of vital importance. Which probably is the reason Popper himself doesn't seem to claim any importance at all for his distinction.) So while I don't have a problem /recognizing/ the Popperian distinction of what is PS and what is not, I fail to see the relevance of it (other than within history of philosophy). The distinction doesn't help me a whole lot to tell whether something is more real than something else /for my life/ (or for humanity, or for the planet, or for the universe -- all with or without capital first letter :). --------------------------------------------------------- >> And Popper's definition of science is not "scientific" by his own >> definition... so what does that say about it? > > I'm not sure that's really a meaningful question (no rudeness intended). > His method is not, I think, a model of a system. It's a description of a > method intended to evaluate systems. If in fact his definition is a > system then I suspect it can be falsified and altered by experimental > verification (or not) and altered and ... .[[So far the original model > passes all falsification attempts :-) :-) ]] I think it /is/ a meaningful question (no rudeness felt :). His definition is outside the realm of PS -- it doesn't predict anything, and thus it is neither testable nor falsifiable. Which means that the roots of the criteria that determine what is considered "science" and what not are outside of PS -- and thusly religion, according to you (if I understood you correctly in some previous posts). (This a theme that will be repeated below.) --------------------------------------------------------- >> So the question remains: what difference does it make whether you call >> something "science"? > To me the difference is vital when attempting to discover "truth" and > "reality". Now here you are getting on a slippery terrain. I'm not sure Popper ever suggested that his definition of science has anything to do with truth or reality (whether in quotes or not); I know, however, at least one citable location where he says his definition has nothing to do with truth (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html): "Thus the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of falsifiability was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability. It was the problem of drawing a line ..." > Popper says that systems which are amenable to his method are never > knowable with certainty Agreed. > BUT that one can (usually) produce increasinghly good models. Seems obvious, but is again a theory outside of PS. No risky predictions, not testable. Thusly, again according to you, this is religion. (It also is not part of the definition of PS, but it is part of determining the importance of whether or not something is PS. Which is a whole different thing, and something IMO clearly outside of PS -- and probably way inside religion.) > He says that systems that are not amenable to his method are never > knowable. Again agreed. I just think this also applies to the systems that fall within his criteria. I think that Popper's criteria necessarily imply that within PS, nothing is "knowable". There is a hope that successive falsification of theories will lead to "better" theories, but this hope is not much more than a hope, or at best something that's taken for obvious. (I have severe problems with most "obvious" things... most engineers probably have been fooled once too often by the "obvious" that wasn't that correct in the end :) PS forbids any positive assertion like "this is how it is". So in essence, PS can never lead to anything knowable. Which puts the phrase above in quite a different light: not only systems that are not amenable to his method are never knowable; systems that /are/ amenable to his method are by his own definition never knowable, too. > BUT - WE CANNOT TELL. We may be completely and utterly wrong. We cannot > tell. So, taking Popper seriously, nothing is knowable. Not if it is PS, not if it isn't -- which pretty much includes everything. WE CANNOT TELL. To which I agree -- but then, this takes a lot out of the steam of many points raised here, especially the importance of the difference between PS and NP. --------------------------------------------------------- > For various reasons we have some people who do NP (non Popper) > religion-science holding up their results as the absolute anseers to > reality while simultaneously deriding people with other flavours of > religion for their naievety and unscientific approach. Definitely. We also have people doing PS who do the same: they do PS, but they fail to recognize the (lack of) importance of whether or not something is PS (as stated by Popper himself). After doing their PS, they go ahead and claim PS as being closer to the "truth" than something else -- which is a claim clearly outside of the realm of PS. With which they show themselves as non-PSists, in their hearts. > True Popperian Science happily recognises that it and True religion (in > all forms) are orthogonal and vice versa and both coexist happily and > get on with their respective jobs. Not sure what you define as "True Popperian Science" or "True religion". I must admit I get goose pickles when somebody uses the (upper-case, in particular) "True <something>". (Probably James Newton gets goose pickles, too -- or whatever he gets -- when reading "true" with upper case T :) In this case it seems to imply that there is "Popperian science" and "True Popperian Science". I also have to admit that I'm lost with what that means. Again, according to you, anything outside PS is religion. The definition of PS is outside of PS (see above), so it seems that it is religion (in your terms). Which makes the statement that PS and religion are orthogonal a bit strange. I'm not sure there is a way to say that science (PS or otherwise) has a claim to "truth" or "reality" without putting it on the same dimension as religion (and thusly removing any possible orthogonality). Any orthogonality could only come from the /absence/ of any claim to "truth" or "importance". Maybe that's what Popper meant (some of what he says seems to agree with this). But then this says that there is no meaning, no importance in whether something is or is not PS -- it's merely a matter of "drawing a line", for no specific purpose (other than practising philosophy, which is what philosophers do and what they get paid for :) > Which form of science is which is important to me so that I can tell > which is the proper way of relating it to "other flavours of religion". > For NPS the approach is "we're all in the same boat". For PS it's "we > can't see each other (but we can still be friends)". Here we may be getting somewhere: "other flavors of religion". I'm not sure how you meant that, but this seems to agree more with what I wrote above than with the sentence that follows it. --------------------------------------------------------- > so, yes, Geology is religion too ;-) - or, to be fair, has many aspects > that are still religion given our capabilities*. Let me be brief here (for a change :) and just say that I think that most disciplines considered sciences have their religious aspects. People believing in the truth of a theory (and fighting for its recognition) are quite common; people believing in scientific "facts" and "truths" are also quite common (and not only in politics and marketing). --------------------------------------------------------- > FWIW - while "Creation" can not properly be dealt with by PS, God can, if > He/She/It wants to be. If God doesn't want to be it's not on, and this > makes the process rather uncertain. (eg God not wanting to play that day > and God not existing tend to have the same outcomes :-) ). If God chose > to invariably and independently verifiably turn water to wine on request > given certain conditions being met then this would be entirely testable > and modellable by PS.(eg Always given x, y &z except on bank holidays.) (This seems to be a bit besides the rest of the discussion, on the surface, but probably not in the deeper layers of your thoughts. So I give it a shot, from the deeper layers of my thoughts... trying to stay within the realms of philosophy, as applied to Popper's definition of science :) If He (the Creator of Everything) exists, who knows whether or not He re-creates the rules every day? He probably could. Throughout the last few hundred years of modern science (possibly a very short "moment" in the Creator's "universe" -- if there exists any time at all) we simply could have been lucky in that the changing rules didn't affect much of what we were trying to find out or what we were able to see, by mere accident... Which could severely interfere with the Popperian postulate that there exists something like consistent testability. So, I guess, one needs to postulate a Creator that does not interfere with the Popperian postulates, if PS should make any sense at all. Of which I'm not sure whether it makes sense, from whatever angle you look at it. And which, again, seems not to combine well with the claimed orthogonality of PS and religion. --------------------------------------------------------- >> I think the more important question is not what is science, but why you >> want to make that distinction. Without knowing that, it seems kind of >> futile. > > I hope the above answers that. If not please advise and I'll try > again, but shorter :-). I don't think it did answer that. It did raise a few new questions, though :) Gerhard

2005\05\23@064610 by Gerhard Fiedler

Bill & Pookie wrote: > When the math taught in schools start reflecting that "five barley loaves, > and two small fishes" can feed five thousand people, we will be in trouble. Definitely -- especially since this is completely outside of the realm of math :) I'm not sure whether this response to one of my posts means that there are people who think I'm an adept of Creationism, or defending anything like it. I hope it became clear that while I don't really see much of a point in the Popper definition of science, I don't see much of a point either in most of the arguments of most Creationists. Especially not the ones who want to introduce bible study classes in disciplines like biology. Gerhard

2005\05\23@082835 by Russell McMahon

{Quote hidden}>> Evolution, with a capitol "E", is the theory that man >> descended from apes descended from thecodonts descended from >> reptiles etc. etc. >> That's the theory the CFs oppose. It should be noted that >> even the most ardent CFs generally accept that evolution >> (lowercase "e") is a real force for biological change. They >> simply refuse to believe that it could be the origin of life. > Ahh... So Evolution can't be proven (or more accuratly, not > disproven) > because we can't go back in time? > I guess I can see that point. You can't say (as a Popper head) that > _E_volution could not account for us being here but you can say that > _e_volution has not yet been disproven. So _E_volution is not Popper > type > science but _e_volution is. > > The point then is that we can never know where we came from. CF or > ES or Pan > Sperma or whatever theory you like is pointless to argue given what > we have > for looking into the past. All statements, as always, are suffixed with an invisible "IMHO". This apparently trivial point is a vitally important one. It's not quite as bad as you suggest above. In areas of NPS we can of course still formulate models and test them. And find they are inadequate and refine them and test them again. BUT the modelling and the testing is subtly but radically different than for PS. This isn't bad (although it's more convenient when things are amenable to PS) but we need The difference is that: In PS the models are of the form "we think this is how it all works" and the tests are of the form "given our model we expect xxx to happen when we yyy". [eg 'I expect this large weight to fall faster than this small weight because it has more mass per surface area and ...' :-) ][Undoing Gallileo] In NPS our model is of "what we think actually happened" and our tests are of the form "do we find xxx which is what we would expect if yyy actually happened." [I think the Eastern Washington Channelled Scablands were eroded over xxx million years because they appear similar to other sites where I think the same thing happened". If this is true then attributes of this system will be similar to other systems where I think this also happened."] [[NB The area is now *believed* to have been eroded by suddenly released flow from one-time Lake Missoula in a period of days rather than millions of years. This is a favoured creationist example - which should not distract free thinkers from the point being made.]] The point is, that in PS one believes that something happens a certain way because when you model it and propose stringent tests to attempt to prove yourself wrong the tests tend to fail. In NPS one believes that something happened because of the interpretation of the evidence available. One can attempt to disprove the conclusion by attempting to find evidence that doesn't match ones belief BUT it is far easier to be able to "explain away" *apparent* inconsistencies and to interpret what one finds in the light of what one already believes. In both PS and NPs one cannot ever know for sure but in NPS it is far easier to fool yourself. In PS it is generally unusual to find two or more mature models of equal quality. If one does then a falsifying test for one should be an equally good test of the other and stringent enough tests will tend to favour one model above others (never without a fight of course. The fights are valuable as they bring light to bear on weak points). In NPS it is far far more likely to find two or more mature models which may be of equal quality. I say "may be" because it is not possible to tell if they are or not. As we are examining "what I think happened given the evidence", opposing theories based on the same evidence will be claimed to have greater merit than all others. The reasons for the interpretations will again lead to fights but for these there is often no resolution. *E*volution is an excellent example of this. Again, this comment does not address Evolution's factuality or otherwise - just notes that as it is NPS the protagonists are sure to be much more bitterly divided over major theories. In NPS it is much easier to make up, modify or develop new theories "on the fly" than with PS. It is even possible to use the lack of evidence as support for a theory. Cf the late great Dr Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" theory of Evolution which took the hitherto vexatious lack of intermediate states between species and used it to create a theory that was supported by the lack of transitional stages - as any good theory must be. Very very very trivially briefly, and not doing it full justice, PE says that beneficial mutations occur in isolate genetic pools which are not mixed with the main population - perhaps in remote valleys or in some other way cut off from the madding crowd. These variations are increased by natural selection until the become the sole or dominant form in this splinter population. This group is then by circumstance suddenly reintroduced to contact with the main population (eg Lake Missoula drains) and their superior genetic construct(s) and significant numbers provide a significant seed to cause the changes to spread rapidly through the main population. The transitional forms did exist, as they *MUST* under Darwin's theory of Evolution (and any other serious variant) but they are confined to a minute geographic area and are relatively small in number in proportion to the change so their chance of survival as fossils or discovery if they did is vanishingly small. Such a NPS post priori fit-the facts conjecture can ONLY be attacked, if the proposer has done their homework (as Gould surely had), by other people's theories and opinions. It is not testable by experiment. It is not readily repeatable. One may attempt to replicate its basic premise with PS but the best that even this can do is show that it really could have happened that way. That's a not totally unconvincing thing to do. I don't know if anyone's tried in the case of punctuated equilibrium. If one wished to try the test would probably be less than convincing as it would probably be restricted to taking an isolate from a homogeneous population, introducing a known advantageous mutation , allowing it to spread until it dominated the isolate and then reintroducing the group to the main body and observing the genetic improvement spread until it dominated the main group. The reason that this would be unsatisfying is that a main plank that the true procedure must be based on is absent - namely the random generation of a beneficial mutation which will spread through a population of specified no trivial size on the basis of its conferred reproductive advantage. The number of mutations that have been seen to arise spontaneously and act in this manner can, to date, be counted on the eyes of one foot. This fact will be hotly contested by many. While it is possible to observe the occurrences of many (apparent) past mutations and while mutations to new progeny is observed and while generations which play fast and loose with existing genetic material are able to be generated artificially, new (beneficial) mutations which produce (stable, continuous) upward progress in reproductive competition have not been observed. I'd be immensely pleased if any who disagree with this understanding were to furnish me with as many examples as possible that disprove it. (The qualifiers in brackets are because, while these are the necessary long term requirements, even without these the statement is AFAIK true). The most frequently cited example, at least historically, of "beneficial mutation" is Sickle Cell Anaemia. While this generically inherited (of course) mutation confers immunity to Malaria, it's highly likely that most people who have it would choose Malaria as a favoured option if they had the choice. The condition causes distortion of the red blood cells into a "sickle" shape. This greatly restricts blood flow in fine capillaries and leads to crippling and painful physical disorders and early death. Under some conditions it may even be reproductively advantageous as the sufferers probably in many cases survive to past reproductive age in areas of heavy malarial infestation. If all "beneficial mutations" carried such downsides few would voluntarily choose them for their children. This does NOT by itself make them a non-Darwinian example. If the mutation passes the reproductive advantage test then it's a candidate. The fact theta the mutation is a simple change to an existing genetic structure would disqualify it from serious consideration in a beneficial-mutation rich environment. When it's one of the few possssssible candidates it becomes something of a poster boy. All the above is NOT a dig at Evolution but shows the sort of considerations that can arise when attempting to support NPS's unavoidably horse after cart approach. Again, this is not a complaint against NPs, just an observation of how it does and must work. The disparate incompatible theories of Evolution are an excellent example of the blindness that can possess even the most capable of people when it comes to pet theories that cannot be tested but only "proved to my satisfaction". The only thing that all flavours of Evolutionists largely agree on is that Creationists are infantile idiots. Which they may be. And may not be :-). To brieeeeeefly address a point from elsewhere. It helps to know if the theory one is dealing with is PS or NPS. As I stated elsewhere, and Gerhard agreed with (without noticing that I'd said it explicitly further up the email)(easily done) is that both PS and NPS deal with things which are ultimately unknowable. PS says "I believe it is likely that xxx works like this because I have tested my model rigorously and it invariably produces the same results as xxx does no matter how hard I try to get it not to." NPS says "I believe that xxx caused yyy by zzz because every piece of evidence I can discover fits in with my conclusion." To convince (usually very grudgingly) the PS believer that he is wrong you just have to break his model.Sometimes this can be done with thought experiments alone. Sometimes it takes more resources than are reasonably available and you need to convince someone with enough money to help you and him break the model, or not. [[There are a number of serious people who question the Michelson Morley experimental results, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/D/Da/Dayton_Miller.htm notwithstanding and/or based on the vast number of tests that were done using even better equipment over many years after M&M went on to other things. BUT nobody will fund an M&M setup these days. The chance of breaking the model seems to remote (or too dangerous) to those with science dollars]]. However, to convince an NPS believer that he is wrong you CANNOT break his model - you have to break his mind. The model is intimately tied to the structure of his belief system and his interpretation of the data. New data which you think breaks his model but which he thinks doesn't, doesn't. "A man convinced against his will, has the same opinion still" . If he isn't even convinced its pointless. What would it take *at a minimum* to "break" updated classical Darwinian Evolution? It's easy to think of large destroyers (aforementioned Panspermiating aliens in Times Square MIGHT do the trick). But any number of small things that were actual outright results of the theory being wrong, would not be accepted as disproofs. It takes a flood-tide in the minds of men to destroy an entrenched NPS model. Take the same small disproofs and cast them at a PS model and they will break it on every occasion, if it's any good. It may be able to be un-broken by Popperian iteration but the next small attack will break it again, Given time it will become so distorted by repeated small attack that it will become obvious that it is grotesquely inadequate. NPS models are much better able to roll with the punches and assimilate discrepancies. These only have to be 'explained away' and not tested out. Classic Gradualism, Hopeful Monsters, Punctuated Equilibria and even Directed Panspermia can rub shoulders, albeit uncomfortably, and present a uniform enough face to the world that they can say "Evolution is proven fact". And, given what we have all too often come to accept the meaning of 'proven fact" to be, they'd be correct. Is "Evolution" fact. I don't know. I don't think so. I may be wrong. But I advise you to run screaming from the room if anyone ever tells you that it certainly is. Am I attacking Evolution per se? Not really (although every robust theory should welcome fair minded attack) But I am attacking the concept of demanding that our children (or we) should have to think in mental straight jackets. That they should be told that some lines of thought are unnacceptable. That some unfounded beliefs are definitely wrong. - Are some unfounded beliefs wrong? - absolutely !!!. - Are some founded beliefs wrong? - of course. - Should we warn our children about the dangers of uncritical thinking?- you know the answer. - Are blind leaps of faith logical? - by definition, probably not, in reality probably sometimes yes. - Should we warn people that certain things are blind leaps of faith? - certainly. - Should be prevent the leapers? - Not if they are of an age to decide for themselves and have been given every opportunity to be discerning along the way. [[See recent discussion and arguments re pornography :-) ]] - Should we pursue and harry the leapers who get it wrong :-) ? - it's up to you to decide :-) Russell McMahon

2005\05\23@091604 by Howard Winter

Bill & Pookie wrote: > > When the math taught in schools start reflecting that "five barley loaves, > and two small fishes" can feed five thousand people, we will be in trouble. Yes, but think what it'll do for MacDonalds' profits if their accountants ever get hold of it! :-) Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

2005\05\23@102128 by Russell McMahon

2005\05\23@102558 by Russell McMahon

>> When the math taught in schools start reflecting that "five barley >> loaves, >> and two small fishes" can feed five thousand people, we will be in >> trouble. And if the educations we afford them do not adequately allow them to open their mental filters to accept that miracles even greater than that can occur in the world around them, then we will be free of discovering such troubling impossibilities as quantum mechanics, or pondering how a universe can create itself "ex nihilo" :-). Such things may of course be beyond your ability to understand* Pookie. RM * So far at least quantum mechanics is beyond anyone's understanding. By at least one major formal definition (Copenhagen Interpretation) it's ununderstandable. QM is PS in effects but completely inexplicable in terms of "how it works".

2005\05\23@110614 by Dave VanHorn

At 09:13 AM 5/23/2005, Russell McMahon wrote: >>>When the math taught in schools start reflecting that "five barley loaves, >>>and two small fishes" can feed five thousand people, we will be in trouble. > >And if the educations we afford them do not adequately allow them to >open their mental filters to accept that miracles even greater than >that can occur in the world around them then, we will be free of >discovering such troubling impossibilities as quantum mechanics, or >pondering how a universe can create itself "ex nihilo" :-). I thought that was supposed to have been from the energy released by the collision of two branes.

2005\05\23@152016 by Gerhard Fiedler

Russell, While I agree in many points, specifically your reservations about considering anything in science, including evolution (and of course also Evolution), a fact, I think you went off on a tangent with the PS/NPS stuff that more distracts from than supports your basic point (at least as I understand it). I don't think there's anything in the PS/NPS distinction that helps understanding your position towards evolution, because it can be explained from both ends, equally... and because the PS/NPS distinction doesn't bring any value into the discussion (at least according to Popper). Russell McMahon wrote: > In both PS and NPs one cannot ever know for sure but in NPS it is far > easier to fool yourself. This may or may not be so... this is definitely a theory outside of PS, and as such it may be quite easy to fool yourself here :) > In PS it is generally unusual to find two or more mature models of equal > quality. Again a theory that's definitely NPS. I find it interesting that most of the discussion about PS here seems to be using NPS theories about the implications of PS. > In NPS it is far far more likely to find two or more mature models > which may be of equal quality. I say "may be" because it is not > possible to tell if they are or not. Not only in NPS it is impossible to tell which theory is of "better quality", this is the same with PS. Unless a PS theory is falsified, it is valid. If it is falsified, it is not valid. Other than that, there are no real (and especially no generally agreed-upon) criteria about the "quality" of a theory -- not in PS, not in NPS, not anywhere else. > All the above is NOT a dig at Evolution but shows the sort of > considerations that can arise when attempting to support NPS's > unavoidably horse after cart approach. Again, this is not a complaint > against NPs, just an observation of how it does and must work. I think here you are throwing oranges and apples (and kiwis and ... :) in one basket. There are many NPS disciplines that don't use a horse after cart approach any more than PS disciplines do that. But there are many disciplines that by definition /have/ to be NPS; which doesn't take anything away from their importance, their meaning, or any other value you may bestow on PS. While some people probably use an NPS approach out of doubtful reasons (for example, out of fear of being proven wrong) where a PS approach would be possible or more adequate, many people use an NPS approach because they study an issue that's simply outside of PS. So I think your attack on attempts to sell NPS as "science" by showing that it's not PS is misguided. This is because you imply (or state explicitly) that PS is somehow closer to the "truth" or some such than NPS. That's ok as a belief frame, but it's definitely not good old PS -- and there this dog bites itself in the tail. > To brieeeeeefly address a point from elsewhere. It helps to know if the > theory one is dealing with is PS or NPS. As I stated elsewhere, and > Gerhard agreed with (without noticing that I'd said it explicitly > further up the email)(easily done) is that both PS and NPS deal with > things which are ultimately unknowable. That wasn't without noticing this... but then, you repeatedly stated quite explicitly that you think that PS is closer to the "truth" or something similar. You seem to jump between these two positions, and it's not easily clear where you are with that. Is PS better (or closer to the "truth", or ...) than NPS? If so, why? Is this theory (that PS is better, or closer to the "truth", or ... than NPS) a PS theory? If it is not, is it a good theory? If it is a good NPS theory, can't there be other good NPS theories? What ultimately tells you whether a theory (PS or NPS) is a good one? So why reject NPS as of minor importance, quality, ... if you yourself see yourself forced to use NPS theories in discussing the superior value of PS? [Side note: I seem to see that you look at this whole thing more with religious eyes than with cold logic eyes. Which I don't say as being a bad thing, but it has implications on the type of argumentation that makes sense :) ] > However, to convince an NPS believer that he is wrong you CANNOT break > his model - you have to break his mind. That is pretty equally valid for PS. You can falsify a theory, but that doesn't necessarily make someone abandon the theory; often they start working on refining the theory. Whether they get there or not is not really of importance; the issue is that until they get there, they follow (have to follow) their beliefs. Which is not so different from what happens in many NPS. > It takes a flood-tide in the minds of men to destroy an entrenched NPS > model. It wasn't really easy to bring in relativity and quantum physics, even though most of Newtonian physics is pretty close to PS -- and as such it shouldn't have taken much to bring in theories that explain the already explained phenomena and some hitherto not explained ones. But it actually took a "flood-tide in the minds of men" to get there. > But I am attacking the concept of demanding that our children (or we) > should have to think in mental straight jackets. That they should be > told that some lines of thought are unnacceptable. That some unfounded > beliefs are definitely wrong. I think the implicit assumption that PS is somehow "better", closer to the "truth", more "acceptable" than NPS falls into this category of "unfounded beliefs". I think what they should also learn is that science (in any form, PS, NPS, CS, whatever) can never replace knowing who you are and where you stand, as everything else derives from that. That's your only fixed point in the universe. Gerhard

2005\05\24@012033 by Russell McMahon

>>>>When the math taught in schools start reflecting that "five barley >>>>loaves, >>>>and two small fishes" can feed five thousand people, we will be in >>>>trouble. >> .. or pondering how a universe can create itself "ex nihilo" :-). > I thought that was supposed to have been from the energy released by > the collision of two branes. That may be today's preferred religious solution or may not. Can change awfully fast. We may have to change that to how branes can create themselves ex nihilo :-) (Turtles all the way down). FWIW - there's no reason that any "thing" external to the system (aka universe) has to necessarily obey the laws that we observe within. RM

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...