An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)

Well, okay, I guess I overstated my point.Let me try to explain myself.My understanding of science is that it is an effort to make truth claims about the world. That is, it is an effort to make statements which are as close as possible to true statements about the natural world.My understanding of (modern/contemporary) philosophy is that it is an effort to characterize truth claims, understand the implications of what makes a truth claim valid, and to elucidate the kinds of truth claim that can validly made within some internally logical framework of axioms.Basically, scientists use the scientific method to make truth claims about the world.Philosophers do NOT make truth claims about the world. They only are interested in the formal properties of truth claims.Philosophers of science are interested in the formal properties of truth claims made by scientists operating under the scientific method.ID has excluded itself from science because it has (in my opinion ) abandoned the scientific method.By excluding itself from science, ID also excludes itself from the philosophy of science, except that a philosopher might say that ID is bad science.ID makes truth claims about the world. Therefore ID is NOT philosophy and shouldn't be taught to schoolchildren as such.Hope this makes sense!Mick

Lets say you are a high-school senior with a semester of science ahead of you.Would it harm you to go through an introduction to the basics of philosophy of science?I think that the biggest reason religion has a problem with Darwinism is that the science classes do a piss-poor job of explaining the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism, and how these implications conflict with the day-to-day philosophies and social values of many people.Its almost like science is saying, "We are science. We dont care about the social, philosophical, or religious effect our theories have. Be quiet, dont think about it, and dont question us."At which point I raise my hand.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 06:01 PM

What conflict? That people still believe in the flat earth or that the wind blows north and south? That people still believe that somehow light traveled for millions of light years in only 6 thousand years? What do you recommend? Torture chambers for scientists that disagree with preestablished doctrines?Science is about progress and exploration of the unknown, not chasing after fairy tales while turning a blind eye to obvious evidence, or the lack thereof.Sorry, a little cranky today.This message has been edited by Troy, 05-16-2005 06:06 PM

quote:

---

What conflict? That people still believe in the flat earth or that the wind blows north and south? That people still believe that somehow light traveled for millions of light years in only 6 thousand years?

---

Uh-huh. Y'know, I dont believe in a flat earth and I dont believe in Darwinism either. Your mundane, shallow thinking reeks of regurgitated media spin.

quote:

---

What do you recommend? Torture chambers for scientists that disagree with preestablished doctrines?

---

Did you skip my post, or what? I recommened that they discuss the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism. Comprende?

quote:

---

Science is about progress and exploration of the unknown, not chasing after fairy tales while turning a blind eye to obvious evidence, or the lack thereof.

---

Translation: Science is about confirming your narrow philosophy and worldview. Screw everyone else.I had hoped this thread would be about compromise. If you want to pick a fight, there are plenty of other threads.Sorry, a little cranky today.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 08:07 PM

In regard to your idea of discussing the philosophy of science (biology) in a high school biology class (or any class in which you teach evolution, I guess), I cannot agree that inserting philosophy into the h.s. science curriculum of a specific class is a good idea. As a high school biology teacher, I see many levels of students every day. From special education/ IEP to honors students who are most likely too smart for my class. I have to change how I get the curriculum across to my students on a daily basis, and in some classes, I have to change stuff period by period to accommodate my diverse group of learners. Inserting a unit on the philosophy of science would merely take up more time that could be spent better on other units such as genetics and, of course, evolution.Most of my students are in the concrete operational stage of learning. There is no way they would get anything from a misplaced attempt at teaching philosophy. Why do you think most high schools don't even have a philosophy elective for upper-classmen? They are not at the mental level required to fully comprehend lessons in metaphysics and epistemology!Now, you could say that if they were taught philosophy earlier in education, they would be more "mentally" advanced in high school and able to discuss philosophy in a biology class. Try to fit that in to a state's curriculum! By focusing on one major thing--philosophy--other things, such as art and music (and some of my brightest bio students are very gifted musically and artistically) that would allow high school students to "evolve" mentally at a reasonable pace would be sacrificed. The in-depth philosophical treatment required would be of benefit to only a few in high school. Face it, most of my students have no need for philosophy in order to go on with their day to day lives as productive citizens.Don't get me wrong, I loved the philosophy classes I took in college--Existentialism, Existentialism in Education, Logic, Environmental Ethics, Philosophy of Religion--but I will say that I could still carry out a productive role as almost anything without a philosophy class. Academic jobs, would of course, need the required philosophy of such-and-such in college, but a general philosophy course in high school would merely be looked at as a waste of time.Another argument would run that there is simply not enough time in which to insert another unit into a State Mandated Testing subject like biology. My students, starting next year, will have to pass a state test in biology in order to graduate from h.s. I already have enough on my plate as far as this is concerned.All science classes in MD have standards--basic minimums--that include a section on the scientific method. Some would argue that the sci method covers enough of the philosophy of science that students need to know in order to function--and sometimes excel--in the sciences. The sci method defines science and how it is used based on the standards set forth by the NCS and the NAS. If it is good enough for the national organizations that are actually made up of scientists doing actual scientific research, then it should be good enough for the states.Your comment about "confirming your narrow philosophy and worldview" is misused. You think that we are wrong b/c science operates on narrow principles. That is actually the foundation of any field. Once you go outside the narrow principles of your field, you are no longer talking about science, religion, music, etc. You seem to want to include so much into science that it would no longer be science. That is exactly what will happen when ID is pushed into biology. (I believe you can find many discussions on why ID is not science elsewhere on this site.)Science deals with one major thing--the natural world, and of course, how it works according to natural laws. Once naturalistic explanations are no longer sought out, biology, or any other science for that matter, would cease to exist. Science is based on evidence--objective evidence. Throwing in subjective beliefs, for example "we don't know with a 100% certainty that this is what happened so 'a god' (higher intelligence, aliens, Buddha, Christ, Allah, etc) did it," does nothing to advance science or its uses in our lives.Everything about science flows from its naturalistic underpinnings. Rigorous testing of hypotheses would count for shit b/c the null hypothesis would always be that god did it. Science rests on experimentation. What good is science if we could subjectively pick and choose the results of experimentation? Things are what they are or they are not. Your support your hypotheses with evidence or you reject them for lack thereof. So, by advocating ID or creationism, you are, in essence, advocating getting rid of the key tool of science needed to understand science in high school--the scientific method!Theories are explanations of many natural phenomena that have been supported by many hypotheses that have been tested many times. You and your ID/creationist buddies still think that evolution is "just a theory and not fact." Your statement is not incorrect. However, you use it deceitfully. Theories explain facts. Without facts, no theories. Without theory, we have nothing but a bunch of facts. You advocate students receiving all the information on everything so they can make up their minds, but you fight against your own agenda by taking the necessary explanation required for intelligent thought out of the equation. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. "We want students to be given all the info so they can make up their minds. However, theory, which is the explanation of the facts the students receive, is unnecessary!" Why have science at all?You seem to forget that not all viewpoints are correct. If someone is wrong, it is the duty of someone who knows what he is talking about to correct that viepoint. Some viewpoints, such as the abortion issue, religion, personal worldview, etc. are subjective and in so many words, a matter of taste. However, science is not a matter of subjective taste!!! In science, hypotheses and theories are either supported or falsified. You cannot agree that the Germ Theory of Disease or the Cell Theory or the Heliocentric Theory or the Theory of Relitivity or (insert a scientific theory here) are correct and can be "believed" while the Theories of Common Descent, Speciation, Evolution, Gradualism and Natural Selection are a "matter of taste". Theories have to be based on serious work backed up by mountains of evidence. By saying that the Theory of Common Descent is wrong is akin to saying that Earth does not revolve around Sun! You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe in science like you can your favorite ice cream! Picking and choosing is what creationists and ID proponents do.You cannot compromise in science. Either the theory wins out or it is proven wrong. Science is a cut-throat operation. There is no middle ground. Theories can be modified, but that is not compromise. Two sides in a scientific argument don't say "I will support your idea if you include or support mine". Science is not democratic. There are no votes. Theories are supported or rejected. Playing on the democratic "ideals" of our country in order to gain popular support for either an overwhelmingly disproven idea such as creationism or an idea that is not based on any hard evidence or experimentation of its own such as ID is shameful, deceitful and inexcusable. You follow the principles of St. Augustine when he advocated the suppression of truth that is contradictory to the faith. In other words, you lie in order to get people to support your subjective "truth". Hmm, I smell hypocrisy!Don't worry, I am having a good day! Smiles all around. I hope you have a good day as well. Or, barring that, make up a good day for yourself. You seem to be good at making things up

quote:

---

Your comment about "confirming your narrow philosophy and worldview" is misused. You think that we are wrong b/c science operates on narrow principles. That is actually the foundation of any field. Once you go outside the narrow principles of your field, you are no longer talking about science, religion, music, etc. You seem to want to include so much into science that it would no longer be science. That is exactly what will happen when ID is pushed into biology. (I believe you can find many discussions on why ID is not science elsewhere on this site.)

---

I guess I disagree. ID is science in its own right, its just not mainstream. And the definition of mainstream is too narrow, custom designed to protect the status quo.Mainstream science looks all the way back...and everything is accidental says science. No room anywhere for another interpretation of the evidence, not just biology. Im sorry, but no matter how you slice it, thats narrow.The big bang, the formation of the Earth, and of course, abiogenesis and then ToE. Its a package deal...no designer allowed...and the name of the package is ??? Secularism? Naturalism? Atheism? Darwinism?I guess 'Darwinism', to me, is someone who takes the 'package deal' and then fights to keep criticisms of ToE out of school, and ID out of science. A Darwinist, to me, accepts whatever mainstream science tells them about life, the universe, and everything.

quote:

---

According to Richard Dawkins the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. Moreover, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986

---

Are Richard Dawkins claims within the realm of evolutionary science? Seems to me he is talking about design. And religion.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 04:44 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 04:47 AM

quote:

---

I recommened that they discuss the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism

---

But, is that Philosophy of Science? Or, as I would say, philosophy that's been developed from science but not inherent within the science itself?The Theory of Evolution is simple. There is variety within species, and genetic mutation adds to that pool of variation. Natural selection acts upon that variation within isolated populations, with some varients favourably passed on as they aid reproductive success of the population in the environment the population is in. Isolated populations thus develop different variations, ultimately leading to speciation. What "philosophical and social implications" are there in that theory?

quote:

---

All science classes in MD have standards--basic minimums--that include a section on the scientific method. Some would argue that the sci method covers enough of the philosophy of science that students need to know in order to function--and sometimes excel--in the sciences. The sci method defines science and how it is used based on the standards set forth by the NCS and the NAS. If it is good enough for the national organizations that are actually made up of scientists doing actual scientific research, then it should be good enough for the states.

---

Not knowing the specific content of a section of the curriculum on scientific method I can't comment on the specifics. But, I would consider defining science to be the basic task of a Philosophy of Science - such a philosophy should try to explain how scientific theories are developed, tested and refined, it should explain how observations and theoretical expectations are linked, it should explain inherent limitations to the scientific method. As I said yesterday, I can see how such a module can run through Philosophies of Science in a historical manner - starting with Baconian Positivism, through Popperian Falsificationism and Kuhnian Paradigm shifts (which, I think is far more a description of how scientists, and scientific communities, operate than a philosophy per se). I think such an approach underlies all of science, so should be in a general science curriculum rather than a specific biology or physics curriculum.I would have found such a unit in my science education very helpful, and it's something I've found myself looking into after the conclusion of my formal science education (which is definitely out of sequence). There's something not quite right about an education system that can award someone a degree entitled "Doctor of Philosophy" (in my case, that's in Nuclear Physics) without any formal teaching of philosophy.

Thank you for being so polite. I apologize for any unseemly tone from my previous message.However, ID is not science, mainstream or not. Science promotes hypotheses and theories that are tested and can be falsified. ID cannot be tested, nor can it be falsified. Something cannot be a science if it doesn't even follow the basic tenets of science.Science does not say that everything is accidental. Whatever happens in the natural world is governed by natural laws that are constant and consistent. Just b/c we are pattern seeking animals who need reasons for everything does not justify us inserting gap-filling arguments just so we can say that we know. We are a very presumptive species, aren't we!?! Which sperm out of a billion fertilizes the egg? Is that accidental? Is it random? Or maybe the sperm that wins out is the most fit. The mutation that led to that increased fitness might have been somewhat random, but the consequence of that mutation depends on that phenotype's interaction with its environment. Nature keeps the gains and eradicts the mistakes. The most fit survive and reproduce. That sounds that anything but accidental.Equating evolution negatively with ideas from outside of science does nothing to move the debate forward. Many Christians are theistic and have no problems with naturalistic science. God just made the universe the way it is and has given us the capability to discover for ourselves what he/she/it has done.Are you fearful of something? I am not trying to be rude, but you sound afraid. Do you think that if evolution is right that your faith is null and void? Do you believe that naturalistic science, which makes no claims on whether a god exists or not, destroys faith? I became an athiest long before I began to study evolution in depth. Nothing in science showed me the way to throw off my shackled beliefs. I just started taking philosophy and comparative religion classes in college. I began to think for myself and lose the fear of retribution or exile in an afterlife. My mother, however, is a very spiritual woman and has no problem with my outlook or with the theory of evolution. I guess some people can still keep church and state seperate in their minds.Have a good one!

Ohhh now ya gone and done it! Agreed, one must master the basics of a system before getting into the minutiae. Science classes should be taught as what current theories are in science. It may include some history to show how some of the major theories came about, but generally there isn't enough time to cover the practical knowledge in a field given the time alloted. This however is a very poor argument. We shouldn't prepare students properly because we don't have time in the current curriculum? Ad pauperum?The fact is that philosophy, specifically logic, underlies most human endeavours and all of science. To teach people how to speak, without giving them the practical skills of how good communication works, or how thoughts are assembled coherently, is almost pointless. You merely create bigoted ad hoc sophists.To teach people to speak and then teach them science, without the practical skills above, is certainly pointless. You merely create bigoted ad hoc sophists with a few practical skills so they get the illusion they know everything.What our current educational system ends up doing is teaching logic in a piecemeal and disjointed fashion, at best mentioning philosophy with a tone of disdain as if that belonged to Greek civilization or freaks with hi IQs. We teach a few skills, with the hope that they'll pick up how to arrange facts properly from other kids on the playground, along with how babies get made. That is backward.EVERYONE uses philosophy, at the very least, logic. This is a stock dilemma. Why exactly would philosophy take up any more time than any other singular class? I took logic and it was a single class, between other classes including sports classes.Also, what use is music and art to the average productive citizen? Why is it necessary for them to learn it in school? How does it help the to "evolve" mentally more than a philosophy course would? It seems to me understanding how facts fit together, and what the underpinnings of science and knowledge are, would be much more useful in helping students "evolve" intellectually. In the first place they could actually identify fallacious arguments, rather than relying on their "emotional" side. That's funny because, even as a science major, I never needed biology at all. I would argue that most people could carry out a productive role as anything without a biology class. Or a math class. Or a history class. etc etc.Unless one is studying what one will major in, there is little use for any class. The key (as far as I understood it) of primary education is to develop certain skills one might need as well as giving one a sufficient exposure to a broad range of subjects one might encounter in life. Some of the fields of philosophy you mentioned would not be useful, but logic certainly is.Indeed the biggest problem I seem to be having at EvC is people have very little knowledge of philosophy and make some very silly mistakes regarding knowledge, which then carry on to debates in science and ethics. Everyone appears to think they can be as good as any philosopher just by being able to listen and talk. Like you, people seem to think they can get along just fine ARGUING without understanding LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY... with perhaps a nod to a few terms like ad hominem and strawman.You cannot be a productive scientist, nor politician, nor in short "a thinker", without a healthy practice in logic and epistemology.The whole debate between ID and Evo rests in epistemology (which I just noted was made explicit in the thread on the Kansas ID issue), so how one can argue people don't need to understand it in general, when people in general are going to decide if ID gets taught, seems a bit shortsighted. What are they supposed to do, just take your word for it?Being in the dark regarding logic and epistemology, your word is going to sound just as good as the IDists word, but maybe a few music majors will feel yours doesn't sound right to them due to emotional issues and not realize that isn't valid.I find it particularly interesting that after that diatribe against the use of philosophy, you deliver and extensive argument, including discussions of epistemic issues. With what did you construct your argument? Logic. On what did you base your premises for the utility of naturalism for science? Epistemology.You use it all the time. You just didn't learn it in a cohesive fashion (or maybe in this case YOU did), or recognize the fact that you use it every day.I use logic almost every day. I don't even use math that much. And what person does.Okay so that's my plug. We do need to teach philosophy from an earlier age. It should be mandatory and cover logic at the very least. For those moving on into science they should also learn epistemology along with the philosophy of science. This is before they get to, or in tandem with, actual hands on science classes.As a nod to the ID question, they could certainly learn the debate as an example issue within such a course (epistemology or philosophy of science). My guess is IDists will start having problems when students begin realizing the practical implications ID poses for knowledge.At the very least students will learn that ID is not a part of modern science, as it does not use the rigorous methods of methodological naturalism.This message has been edited by holmes, 05-17-2005 03:27 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hi Hitchy,Normally I don't comment on the posts that cause temporary suspensions, but your post was outstanding. It deserved the POTM nomination it received and more. Only the last few sentences were amiss. See you tomorrow.PS - Kudos to Limbo for not responding in kind.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

Are you fearful of something? I am not trying to be rude, but you sound afraid. Do you think that if evolution is right that your faith is null and void?

---

I'm glad you asked that. Yes, I am afraid for the distant future of the Human race. I'm afraid for the long term diversity of our cultures, religions, traditions, and philosophies.Science is slowly choking the life out of non-atheistic worldviews, and it does make me furious and afraid. I want to pass my spiritual values and beliefs to my grand-children, and die with some confidence that they will be able to do the same without having to whisper them in dark corners or underground hideouts.

Why are you unable to do so now?What is it about science that precludes spiritual values or beliefs?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I just don't understand this view. I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist but I've known numerous atheists over the years and none of the folks I've met who fall into either category have ever shown the slightest interest in restricting the religous freedoms of others.If anything the boot is on the other foot. The worry is that one of the Christian sects will revert to the historical pattern Christians have displayed over more than a thousand years of history - namely imposing their own particular views on the entire populace and brutally suppressing all dissent or even discussion.If you are worried that science is going to say the best evidence we have is that :

1. the Earth is not 6000 years old
2. there never was a global flood
3. all life on Earth has common ancestry
4. we share a common ancestor with other primates
5. there is currently no evidence that life was designed
6. etc. etc.

then yes, you have grounds to be worried. That is just where the currently available evidence takes us.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

quote:

---

I think that the biggest reason religion has a problem with Darwinism is that the science classes do a piss-poor job of explaining the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism, and how these implications conflict with the day-to-day philosophies and social values of many people.

---

Why would it need to? It's a SCIENCE class.

quote:

---

Its almost like science is saying, "We are science. We dont care about the social, philosophical, or religious effect our theories have."

---

Exactly - why would science care about what effect it has on people? It's all about the accumulation of knowledge. Let the politicians and priests sort out the implications.

quote:

---

"Be quiet, dont think about it, and dont question us."

---

It's more "This is the best explanation based on the evidence so far, like it or not. The ball's in your court now"