Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5750 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 31 of 91 (209105)
05-17-2005 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:26 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
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.
I can see you haven't done your homework, or are just fond of using loaded terms like "Accidental" - evolution isn't 100% random. The random mutations are passed through the non-random filter of natural selection. Try it for yourself with a bucket of 100 pennies. Pour it out on a surface, and put all of the pennies that land tails up back into the bucket. They are dead. Pour out those pennies again, and repeat until you have all 100 pennies heads up. Oops! You've just produced an event that has a 1/(2^100) chance of happening..."by accident" !
By the way, what is the ID "interpretation of the evidence"? All I see is a giant argument from ignorance - I don't know how this worked, so Goddiddit!
On another note, I think that the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method should be taught - ie, the methodology, etc. The schools do a crappy job of that as of yet, it should be taught in the first few weeks of every science class. But why on earth would ID be dragged into it?
This message has been edited by Alasdair, May-17-2005 02:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:26 AM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by coffee_addict, posted 05-17-2005 6:19 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 35 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 7:28 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 45 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 2:11 AM Alasdair has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 32 of 91 (209110)
05-17-2005 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:26 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Limbo writes:
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?
Whoever taught you this crap should be awarded an honorary PhD in brainwashing.
You want to put a label on all of science as some sort of conspiracy against your religious beliefs ?
"..no designer allowed.."
It's more like "no designer needed - please apply to the theology department".
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-17-2005 04:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:26 AM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 2:23 AM EZscience has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 33 of 91 (209127)
05-17-2005 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Alasdair
05-17-2005 5:09 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Alasdair writes:
On another note, I think that the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method should be taught - ie, the methodology, etc. The schools do a crappy job of that as of yet, it should be taught in the first few weeks of every science class. But why on earth would ID be dragged into it?
Having been a tutor and TA for quite a while (don't worry, I'm a step closer to a phd everyday ), I am quite sure that students at a middle school and high school level are not mentally and intellectually equipped to start learning the philosophical standpoint behind science. I am convinced that it is better for them to criticize science out of ignorance than to hate science out of total shock.
Perhaps such a curriculum is possible for gifted students... but I think that is still pushing it.
I was in the gifted and talented academy in high school and graduated 6th.. (or was it 8th?) in my class. I studied with some of the brightest people I know. I can definitely tell you that many of us were not ready to study in depth the material regarding the matter that I began to study in college.
In other words, I think it is better for high/middle school students to take a leap of faith about the matter before being expected to know the why's and the how's.
Make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Alasdair, posted 05-17-2005 5:09 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 7:25 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-18-2005 5:05 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 91 (209140)
05-17-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by coffee_addict
05-17-2005 6:19 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
In other words, I think it is better for high/middle school students to take a leap of faith about the matter before being expected to know the why's and the how's.
Make sense?
Yes, it does. Perhaps schools could create their own optional summer courses, or workshops, or video presentations that parents could provide their kids with using vouchers or something.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 07:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by coffee_addict, posted 05-17-2005 6:19 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 05-17-2005 8:15 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 91 (209141)
05-17-2005 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Alasdair
05-17-2005 5:09 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
On another note, I think that the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method should be taught - ie, the methodology, etc. The schools do a crappy job of that as of yet, it should be taught in the first few weeks of every science class. But why on earth would ID be dragged into it?
Because ID is a variation of the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Alasdair, posted 05-17-2005 5:09 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 05-17-2005 8:17 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 40 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 12:01 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 51 by Dr Cresswell, posted 05-18-2005 5:46 AM Limbo has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 36 of 91 (209152)
05-17-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Limbo
05-17-2005 7:25 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Actually, that's not a bad idea, although I really don't many kids benefiting from such a program. Besides, who would pay for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 7:25 PM Limbo has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 37 of 91 (209155)
05-17-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Limbo
05-17-2005 7:28 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
No, it is not. Do you or do you not agree that ID involves the supernatural? If so, then it is not science and should not be taught in science classes. If you answer no, then please suggest a way for us to measure the designer... like finding out how much it weighs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 7:28 PM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 91 (209224)
05-17-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:26 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
ID is science in its own right, its just not mainstream.
What are the Theories associated with ID?
What are it's testable predictions?
What are the potential falsifications?
What tests have been undertaken and what is the positive evidence that supports these theories of ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:26 AM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 91 (209225)
05-17-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Limbo
05-16-2005 4:34 PM


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.
1) What does the "philosophical implications" of any scientific theory have to do with it's validity?
2) Just what are these "philosophical implications" of Darwinism that you think exist, and what is your proof that they are commonly held among scientists and/or science teachers?
3) How does the fact that allele frequencies change in populations over time conflict with the day-to-day philosophies and social values of many people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 4:34 PM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 91 (209227)
05-18-2005 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Limbo
05-17-2005 7:28 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
A reply to message #15 in this thread would be appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 7:28 PM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 91 (209229)
05-18-2005 12:10 AM


This is great!
What a timely cartoon!
You can see more Tom Tomorrow cartoons at Working for change.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 05-18-2005 4:59 AM nator has not replied
 Message 50 by Dr Cresswell, posted 05-18-2005 5:30 AM nator has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 91 (209233)
05-18-2005 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
05-16-2005 10:15 AM


quote:
But science WAS limited for a long time.
Remember what happened to Galileo?
I find it ironic that you would mention Galileo. I would like to draw your attention to this:
Page not found - Boundless
quote:
The people in our age who truly bear the closest resemblance to Galileo's opponents are those who defend Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution in spite of the growing accumulation of evidence that suggests that evolution is, biochemically speaking, impossible. Those who most resemble Galileo in this current controversy have names such as Behe, Denton and Ross. Expect the resemblance to grow more obvious over time.
quote:
Well, that's easy. MN wins, hands down.
ID doesn't make any testable predictions, but Evolutionary Biology certainly does, and has, for 150 years. And nearly all of them have been borne out.
Well, then what are you so afraid of? Let the 'new kid on the block' try to show his stuff. MN is tough, it can take it.
quote:
Nobody is stopping the ID folks from doing science but them.
Go ahead, test your predictions and see what happens.
Well, Ill go ahead and tell the scientific community to let ID join the science club, since only official club members can be taken seriously enough to have their predictions tested.
Cause if they arent 'members' then their predictions are rejected as 'pseudo-science', right? Why would science bother testing that?
So, lets mail the ID people their 'super-secret mainstream science community decoder rings' and membership number right away, and then we will get down to business once everyone is in the clubhouse.
Do you see my point?
quote:
The Theory of Evolution is quite falsifiable all on it's own.
Sure would be nice is science fessed up and gave people a few good, solid ways to do this. How about an encyclopedia of ways to falsify it? Or how about you start a field of science whose job it is to falsify it? Yeah! Show us all how brave Darwinists are!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 05-16-2005 10:15 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 05-18-2005 1:14 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 05-18-2005 6:11 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 56 by EZscience, posted 05-18-2005 6:33 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 64 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 8:07 AM Limbo has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 91 (209235)
05-18-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Limbo
05-18-2005 1:02 AM


You want special treatment?
Well, Ill go ahead and tell the scientific community to let ID join the science club, since only official club members can be taken seriously enough to have their predictions tested.
That isn't the way it has worked for any other new idea. The proponents do the tests and demonstrate that there is some value in the idea. Then others attempt to reproduce the results to see if they still stand up.
After all that the ideas are given some degree of consideration. It may take awhile, of course, science as always been pretty conservative.
However, the ball is in the ID court. When they can find their racquet and give it a lobe over the net they might be taken a bit seriously.
You can't expected to be taken seriously if you can't play the rough, tough game that the real scientists play.
So, lets mail the ID people their 'super-secret mainstream science community decoder rings' and membership number right away, and then we will get down to business once everyone is in the clubhouse.
No ring is necessary, just do the dammed work!
As for falsification of evolutionary theory this has been posted a bunch of time in various places in this board. I'm not sure you will get it if it is stated yet again.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-18-2005 01:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 1:02 AM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 2:07 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 91 (209242)
05-18-2005 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
05-18-2005 1:14 AM


Re: You want special treatment?
quote:
However, the ball is in the ID court. When they can find their racquet and give it a lobe over the net they might be taken a bit seriously.
You can't expected to be taken seriously if you can't play the rough, tough game that the real scientists play.
Well, thats fine, but how about if science quits excommunicating heretics who try to do the ID work in the meantime.
If people werent so scared for thier career and reputation...but mainstream science intimidates them into silence. Follow the program or face the wrath of the high priests of Darwin!
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 02:34 AM
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 02:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 05-18-2005 1:14 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Cresswell, posted 05-18-2005 5:27 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 91 (209243)
05-18-2005 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Alasdair
05-17-2005 5:09 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
I can see you haven't done your homework, or are just fond of using loaded terms like "Accidental" - evolution isn't 100% random.
Well, then perhaps you can tell me what science meant by this:
quote:
the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. - Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Alasdair, posted 05-17-2005 5:09 PM Alasdair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Alasdair, posted 05-18-2005 2:50 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024