|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I often puzzle over structures that are common place in our anthropomorphic world that would be equally useful in a biological one but don't exist - tripods and wheels are obviois examples (although some wheel-like structures seem to appear in bacterai.)
A tri-limbed organism would have to have a totally different skeletal, joint and muscular structure to anything we've so far found and would have to have a very divergent evolutionary history. I think we can confidently say that it doesn't exist. it's not a black swan, 'no bird', kind of idea - it *can't* exist. So if we came across a 3 foot tripaedal or wheelbarrow animal in a remote place it would junk the ToE overnight.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
So if we came across a 3 foot tripaedal or wheelbarrow animal in a remote place it would junk the ToE overnight. Not necessarily. But it certainly would have to be studied and understood, and then that new data would have to be fitted into an overall picture (theory) somehow. If it required changing or even scrapping the theory of evolution, a new theory would have to be developed that would take into account both the new and all of the existing data. And creationists would hate it just as much as they do the current theory.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
I hope it's not uncool to steal from another thread, but herebedragons just made a post on Faith's thread that I though was incredibly relevant to what I'm up against.
Message 121 herebedragons writes: What I have found is that discussing the particulars is rather pointless since it is the basic premises of science that are being rejected. It seems more necessary and beneficial to discuss basic principals rather than specific evidence. For example, how we make inferences, how we use indirect evidence, how we test and verify theories, how and when we use assumptions, etc.We all know the tired old adages "It's just a theory" or "It's still a fish." So, IMO, the more important point to be made is HOW and WHY we come to the conclusions we do, otherwise it can seem (to them) that our conclusions are a priori assumptions rather than conclusions based on the evidence. There also seems to be great ignorance of basic scientific principals such as how gravity sorts particles, 2nd law of thermodynamics and so on. The kind of things you learn about in introductory science courses. Those are the things that need to be hammered away at. HBD This is SO true for my situation. It doesn't serve me (or them) to just start arguing particulars and throwing facts at them. I have to start almost from scratch and educate them as to the value of the scientific method and common scientific terms, etc. I'll give an example I found regarding the use of the term "experimental error": Doug Batchelor prominent SDA YEC 'oracle'(LINK) uses the term when talking about Willard Libby and Carbon Dating:
quote: Now the way he uses the term "experimental error" and the way his audience hears that term is TOTALLY different from the way Libby is using the term in his book. When through the curve of knowns he discovered that the earth's ratio was not in equilibrium , he did NOT dismiss it as in "Oh, that's BS and just an error caused by the experiment so I'll ignore it.", though that is how Batchelor means it and that is how the audience hears it. What Libby says is that when this is discovered they didn't worry about it much because it fell *well within* the range of the experimental error rate of the method (+/-10% at the time). It's a bit like the English Lit student trying to school Azimov on science -- don't try to talk science until you've learned just a BIT of the language. I have to teach kids the language before almost anything else. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
There are yet another couple points that really need to be presented and they are the culture of questioning what you are told and then the culture of honesty, of attention to content regardless of source.
So much of Christianity (and other religions and even social clubs) are based on accepting what the hierarchy passes down. Do not question or challenge or test what the elders or pastors or brothers or bishops or priests tell you. That is not the case when actually doing science. The culture there is to question not only what others tell you but even what you yourself believe and discover. The second and really important point is the culture of honesty. Any scientist that got caught excluding information that might hurt or refute the scientists position would be severely sanctioned within the science community. Fudging data or taking data out of context (quote mining) would not just lead to sanctions but in addition the whole lifetime body of work of that scientist would get reexamined.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Coyote writes: Not necessarily. Given our knowledge of the natural world, I think it would be an exception to the concept of common decent - a rabbit in the Cambrian. There are no precedents - it would be an alien lifeform. (if it literally was, it would not threaten the ToE of course.) That's why I say it's impossible, the ToE predicts that such a beast can't exist.
If it required changing or even scrapping the theory of evolution, a new theory would have to be developed that would take into account both the new and all of the existing data. Sure, but can you imagine the turmoil.....it would be fantastic to witness.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. Just a few requests:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A tri-limbed organism would have to have a totally different skeletal, joint and muscular structure to anything we've so far found ... Consider a whale like animal (re)emerging on land, with no hind limbs left but a strong tail.
(although some wheel-like structures seem to appear in bacterai.) Dung beetles would be a good starting point ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
jar writes: There are yet another couple points that really need to be presented and they are the culture of questioning what you are told and then the culture of honesty, of attention to content regardless of source. So much of Christianity (and other religions and even social clubs) are based on accepting what the hierarchy passes down. Do not question or challenge or test what the elders or pastors or brothers or bishops or priests tell you. Great point and it highlights something I said earlier in the thread (I believe it was to Faith). My goal is to actually teach my family how to question and learn. I'll ask them "Why did you believe that?" And they answer ... "I don't know ... it's just what they told us." In the fundamentalist world, hierarchy is everything and at every level those below are not to question those above. At the very bottom of the list are children who aren't allowed to question ANYONE. If they are female, this continues your entire life as you are married off to a man who is the dictatorial head of the household. As it happens, all 4 of the family members who are open to learning from me are woman and I can see this "question me until you are satisfied" is a strange new world for them. I don't want them to just believe me - that's no better than what they are coming from. Thanks for reminding me of how I need to think of how to work that in. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RAZD writes: Consider a whale like animal (re)emerging on land, with no hind limbs left but a strong tail. I suppose the nearest we actually have is a monkey's prehensile tail. But my point was not that a tripod is an impossible structure for evolution to develop, it was that suddenly finding a 3 foot (sic) one now would impossible. There'd have to be millions of years of other critters with similar structures to get to that point of development and they'd be everywhere or close to exinction - in which case there'd be a rich fossil record. It would have developed from something and and there would have to be a large pre-history of development - it couldn't go unnoticed.
Dung beetles would be a good starting point Nah, their 'wheel' isn't part of their anatomy. A wheel would be a difficult biological structure to integrate into a body - it's hard to imagine how musculature necessary to power the thing could be dislocated from the circular motion so that it doesn't just wrap around itself.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Whoops, just saw the moderator warning and this isn't on topic.
Hidden, peek for content.
RAZD writes:
I suppose the nearest we actually have is a monkey's prehensile tail. A tri-limbed organism would have to have a totally different skeletal, joint and muscular structure to anything we've so far found ...
Consider a whale like animal (re)emerging on land, with no hind limbs left but a strong tail. Those guys are pretty close to being a tripod... If their back flippers fused to be more like a manatee, then they'd be even closer. Edited by Cat Sci, : Abort!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As it happens, all 4 of the family members who are open to learning from me are woman and I can see this "question me until you are satisfied" is a strange new world for them. I don't want them to just believe me - that's no better than what they are coming from. What about "herstories" of women scientists and their works?
Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles, and Momentous Discoveries Women in Science: Then and Now Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Doug Batchelor prominent SDA YEC 'oracle'(LINK) uses the term when talking about Willard Libby and Carbon Dating:
quote: Now the way he uses the term "experimental error" and the way his audience hears that term is TOTALLY different from the way Libby is using the term in his book. When through the curve of knowns he discovered that the earth's ratio was not in equilibrium , he did NOT dismiss it as in "Oh, that's BS and just an error caused by the experiment so I'll ignore it.", though that is how Batchelor means it and that is how the audience hears it. What Libby says is that when this is discovered they didn't worry about it much because it fell *well within* the range of the experimental error rate of the method (+/-10% at the time). Yet there is also a reason that 14C was not in equilibrium in the atmosphere that has since been discovered. This is another example of a first approximation being made to explain how something works. Libby estimated the half-life at 5568 years and he assumed that the rate of 14C generation was constant. Then he finds that 14C hasn't reached a predicted equilibrium level, even though it is close -- there is an anomaly (and the greatest words in science are said ... "that's curious ... ") Then we find that the generation of 14C is NOT constant as had been assumed, but varies widely because the cosmic ray bombardment generator process varies widely with solar activity. This destabilizes the 14C atmospheric levels so that reaching equilibrium is not possible. This variation then affects the accuracy of the dating calculations even though the measurements are very precise. Then we find that the actual half-life is closer to 5730 years, so age calculations need to be adjusted to make them more accurate. Then the variation of 14C with age is determined from tree rings of known ages and we can either back-calculate the original atmosphere levels at the time the rings were formed, or we can just compare the measured 14C levels to those in the tree rings at find the age from the tree rings with matching levels (which has the benefit of incorporating the change to the half-life -- and any future improvement in that value), and it takes the post industrial revolution fossil fuel effect on recent values into account. This then improves the accuracy by reducing the effect on the results from the variations in atmospheric levels. Each step makes the process better and a more accurate measurement of age. btw -- you can model the equilibrium situation by using a bucket with a hole in the bottom. If you fill it with water at a constant rate the level will rise until the outflow rate (proportional to depth) matches the inflow rate. Now turn the tap on and off ... Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Now the way he uses the term "experimental error" and the way his audience hears that term is TOTALLY different from the way Libby is using the term in his book. When through the curve of knowns he discovered that the earth's ratio was not in equilibrium , he did NOT dismiss it as in "Oh, that's BS and just an error caused by the experiment so I'll ignore it.", though that is how Batchelor means it and that is how the audience hears it. What Libby says is that when this is discovered they didn't worry about it much because it fell *well within* the range of the experimental error rate of the method (+/-10% at the time). If you take 10 pennies and toss them on the table we know that theoretically they land with 5 heads and 5 tails, but we also know that this isn't necessarily the result. What would be a good estimate of the error? If you did 10 such tosses and counted the number of times you got 5/5, 6/4, 7/3, 8/2, 9/1 and 10/0 results, and then calculate what the average error was for each throw. Does this average error mean that you never get 5 heads and 5 tails? How well does the average error predict what a single throw will show? If you distinguish 6 heads and 4 tails from 4 heads and 6 tails (ie record 0/10, 1/9, 2/8, 3/7, 4/6, 5/5, 6/4, 7/3, 8/2, 9/1 and 10/0) you can show that the average result approximates 5 each, with increasing accuracy the more throws you make. You can also experiment to find how many throws it takes to get a good idea of what the average error would be for infinite throws. Then introduce the concept of standard deviation and relate that to the number of throws necessary to get an accurate representation of the average value and the degree of error likely in a single throw. Now you have the ability to report the average and the values between +1σ and -1σ ... and you can ask if results ever fall outside those error bars.
Climate Sanity, Applying Monte Carlo simulation to Sloan’s and Wolfendale’s use of Forbush decrease data And you can note that this is a concept that is prevalent throughout science. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : 5 not 4 tailsby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If you take 10 pennies and toss them on the table we know that theoretically they land with 5 heads and 4 tails ... Now that would be remarkable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Fixed thanks. Hate it when that happens.
I was thinking you could also do it with 5 pennies with possible results 0/5, 1/4, 2/3, 3/2, 4/1, and 5/0. In theory you would never get 2.5 heads or 2.5 tails, but that would be the long term average -- and now you can talk about accurate values and precise values.
ac•cu•ra•cy[ak-yer-uh-see] noun, plural ac•cu•ra•cies.
In scientific use Accuracy means your ability to hit the bulls eye of a target. If we take a bow and shoot 200 arrows at a target, and all the arrow locations average out to a bull's eye, then the average result is very accurate, the closer they cluster to the bull's doesn't affect the degree of accuracy, even though there may be significant error in any one shot and there may not even be a single bull's eye in the whole group. There could be a fairly large degree of scatter in the data and still have an accurate overall average result.
pre•ci•sion[pri-sizh-uhn] noun
Again, in scientific usage Precision means the ability to replicate exactly the same results. With our bow and arrow example we now have 200 arrows all clustered very close together, but they may or may not be located near the bull's eye, and their location relative to the bull's eye does not affect the precision. There is very little scatter in this case, so it is highly precise, as the degree of scatter defines the precision. As you can see these terms are not quite the same, and ideally we would like to have a system that is both accurate and precise. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024