Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2018 7:24 AM
92 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, Meddle, PaulK, RAZD, Son of Man (6 members, 86 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,421 Year: 17,244/29,783 Month: 1,232/1,956 Week: 229/506 Day: 34/131 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   students to examine criticisms of biological evolution.
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 8 (26982)
12-17-2002 10:56 AM


http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/1039602647180400.html

------------------


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 01-01-2003 4:01 AM graedek has not yet responded

  
TheDanish
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (27281)
12-18-2002 9:32 PM


I'm pretty sure that belongs in "Education and Creation/Evolution."

Anyway, it's good to open classes to criticism IMHO -- we don't want kids to believe with religious fervor that any particular theory is the One True Theory, after all. I know that's not the point of the article, but to me it's important to teach kids to be critical towards theories, because that's so fundamental in science.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-01-2003 3:31 AM TheDanish has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 8 (28236)
01-01-2003 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by TheDanish
12-18-2002 9:32 PM


Moved, and bumped.

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TheDanish, posted 12-18-2002 9:32 PM TheDanish has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 4 of 8 (28238)
01-01-2003 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by graedek
12-17-2002 10:56 AM


To all,

From the reference:

"The board made a clear statement and said 'no' to pseudo-science," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University professor and a board member of Ohio Citizens for Science.

My question: How would pseudoscience be defined?

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graedek, posted 12-17-2002 10:56 AM graedek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 01-02-2003 9:36 AM peter borger has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 8 (28287)
01-02-2003 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
01-01-2003 4:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
To all,

From the reference:

"The board made a clear statement and said 'no' to pseudo-science," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University professor and a board member of Ohio Citizens for Science.

My question: How would pseudoscience be defined?

Best wishes,
Peter


Here's a good definition:

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

Partial quote:

"A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.

Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 01-01-2003 4:01 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 01-04-2003 6:43 AM nator has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 6 of 8 (28400)
01-04-2003 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
01-02-2003 9:36 AM


Dear All,

Schrafinator says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
To all,
From the reference:

"The board made a clear statement and said 'no' to pseudo-science," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University professor and a board member of Ohio Citizens for Science.

My question: How would pseudoscience be defined?

Best wishes,
Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a good definition:

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

Partial quote:

"A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.

Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible."

PB says:

Everybody agrees with this definition?

BW
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 01-02-2003 9:36 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Gzus, posted 01-04-2003 8:50 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-06-2003 10:22 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 8 (28404)
01-04-2003 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by peter borger
01-04-2003 6:43 AM


yeah
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 01-04-2003 6:43 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 8 (28548)
01-06-2003 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by peter borger
01-04-2003 6:43 AM


I agree. So what fields do you consider as pseudoscience?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 01-04-2003 6:43 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018