Education

quote:

---

"Science for science sake" vs. "science as just a means to the practitioner's end" ... which is important here?

---

Both are important.Some of the most important practically-applied science ever done has come out of basic research with no other motivation but the wish to understand something about nature.

quote:

---

Also, plumbers (like physicians) seem to me to require ongoing research and theory-testing skills, albeit, just on a more macroscopic scale...

---

No, they do not develop and test theory like a scientist does.A scientist develops controlled experiments to test theories, and analyses the data gathered under strict methodological systems.Plumbers and Physicians "trouble shoot" based upon informed experience. There is no controlled experiment and there is no strict methodology, and there is no analysis of data.At least, not anywhere near at the level of detail a scientist does.Plumbers and Physicians are not trained to do any of this.

quote:

---

Looking in a typical plumber's van I've seen a hundred or so tools, several thousand types of materials and fittings, etc.

---

So what? I have a lot of tools in my kitchen, too, and I know how to use each one well, but that doesn't make me a food scientist.

quote:

---

They, too, have experimented and tested materials and techniques, and employed ongoing of scientific methods and research to design, construct, and/or fix hydro-mechanical phenomena.

---

No, they don't.They trouble-shoot.

quote:

---

True, a humble toilet-scientist may not be as proud as a slime-scientist (AKA, micro-biologist). Yet both have advanced degrees of education.

---

Education levels are not the issue.It is the training and expertise that is the issue.Doctors and plumbers are not trained to test theory. They are not scientists.

quote:

---

Thus, it seems silly to me that a master-plumber need be ... "sorely-lacking in research and theory-testing skills".

---

That is not their training. That is not their field of expertise.I mean, how many plumbers do you know who regularly use advanced statistical anyalysis techniqes in their daily work?

quote:

---

If evolution is so complicated that medical doctors are not educated sufficiently to understand it,

---

Wha??I said nothing at all of the sort and have no clue how you got that from what I wrote.I said that doctors don't have the same skill set and expertise as scientists.I never said they were not capable of understanding science, but that they do not do science on a daily basis.I do not study the chemistry of food and cooking, even though I am a food professional, yet I am sure that if I were to study food chemistry, I could understand it just fine.But just because I do not know a great deal about it at the moment doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught in college food science courses, or even in home ec in high school.

When I say that everybody agrees about the evidence, I mean that the experiments are reproducible. Everybody who does the experiment will get the same result. If they don't, then somebody has messed up and it's time to figure out who. But in the end, there is agreement about the evidence.That is not the case with the Bible. There are many different translations and many different interpretations of every translation. There is no body of "evidence" that everybody can agree on. In that way, the Bible is completely different from science.I repeat, belief in the Bible is in no way similar to confidence in the body of evidence behind science. It isn't "my" ToE. I haven't even said whether I agree with it or not.I'm simply trying to point out your misunderstanding of the difference between science and religious belief. My first point in this thread was that they are based on two completely different ways of thinking.Science is based on empirical evidence and religion is based on belief. It seems to me that you are claiming that science is based on "faith" in the evidence. It is not. I agree with that. I am trying to make a point that you don't seem to be affected by education, because you keep insisting that science depends on faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Early on in this thread, several made comments about how scary it was about the way people feel about religious/science issues. I agree it's scary.If you ever have the opportunity to discuss the Bible errancy issue in person with a man of the cloth you will witness the proverbial deer in the headlights look. They are absolutely struck speechless when you ask the right questions. Make it simple and watch them freak out. First response usually is, "I thought you were smarter than that boy! Your daddy taught you better!" This means he's trying to bully you to drop the assault...one he knows in his heart he cannot sustain.Question 1: Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God?He will say YES!Question 2: So, you believe that because it is the infallible, God Inspired text that there are no errors?He will know you are going to nail him yet he has to say, "YES!"Then hit him with obvious errors and inconsistencies one at a time like "How did Judas die?". I had one (30 year preacher) actually say, "You mean there are 2 versions of that event? I never knew that!" These people are just as ignorant as the congregations they serve. It is indeed scary.They have not one clue.

---

8upwidit2..like u

At the risk of sounding biased, I would surmize that creationists (in general)are pretty narrow minded and are taught one belief paradigm>>>>wheras evolutionists have by and large been better educated and are able to incorporate a wide variety of belief paradigms which give them a much broader perspective. I am not picking on either side---I am only stating my opinion about the belief paradigms in general! I am a definite believer in God, Jesus, Spiritual realms, and the supernatural....yet I have no problem with evolutionary theories (and facts) at all! I am a definite "creationist" in the issue of where the universe came from. I am also a definite creationist in regards to God as monotheistic, personal, and able to transcend our collective human definitions of Him. (In other words, we humans did NOT make Him up!). I either evolved into my current mindset or I was foreknown by God to have taken this belief paradigm at this point in time... I believe that both are possible and certainly within the framework of Gods creative potential and power! NosyNed brings up the statistics that show that higher educated people are more apt to believe in evolutionary theories. Personally, I have no problem with allowing the possibility of scientific theories room to advance human understanding and speculation on our origins as long as God is not shoved on the back burner in light of the very human and egotistical trait of dismissing Him!I agree with you, PORTEUS...Science must come after Faith in God (and relationship with God) in order for life to have a divine purpose. Having kids who will some day explore the galaxies and raise the human species up as an evolved survivor in the cosmic dance is just not impressive enough to be my belief paradigm! It gives me the heebie jeebies when scientific agnostics dismiss our species warlike tendencies to an evolved survival trait and conclude that advanced "animals" will always find more efficient ways of killing each other!Either way, humans need to get their act together! Either evolve into peaceful people if you believe that you can, or be as I am and trust and get to know the One who will set your mind free!

Sounds like silly pride to me. My humble plumber lives on the lake and makes about thrice as much as most UAH research biologists.If that plumber's not employing the scientific method with his research, than why is he so much richer than smart biologists?

By that logic, Donald Trump ought to have a whole string of Nobel Prizes.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Because he charges more?

True, most plumbers keep their "advanced statistical techniques", inventories, etc. at somewhat of a more phlegmatic level.But "advanced statistical techniques" have been so mis-employed by individual "research" scientists as to oft become suspiciously invalidated. I never place much credence in my American Podiatric Journal stats, especially with new procedures and techniques by research scientists.For example, NosyNed's Harris Poll stats here from Message 4... He stated the stats showed an "obvious trend", which is *obviously* not true (to me)... I quote: I've demonstrated (to Ned) (http://EvC Forum: Education -->EvC Forum: Education) that those educational stats are fatally misleading due to extraneous variables.My cat knows more about "advanced statistical anyalyses" than these social psychologists. The point being, as a physcian, I must suspect fanciful new theories by *research* scientists and their stats.(Returning to the topic) I view that personality types, IQ, socio-ethnic backround, faith, etc., probably would correlate greater in determining Evo vs. Creo than educational levels.This message has been edited by Philip, 12-13-2005 04:52 PM

My logic is faulty and bigotted (perhaps even from a humane perspective) and is ONLY meant to expose pompousness of proud know-it-all *researchers*. I stand corrected. Also I apologize if I've insulted any (beside myself).The point being, most abrasive biology researchers I've encountered could stand a bit of sarcastic humor, don't you think?

So whats your position on the topic at hand ... (education and all)?

You haven't been reading, I take it? I've made my position clear.

Respectfully, Phat, I see the opposite...I would surmize that evos (in general) are pretty narrow minded and are taught one belief paradigm wheras creos have by and large been better educated and are able to incorporate a wide variety of belief paradigms which give them a much broader perspective.i.e., ...better and more broadly educated ... with regard to perceiving ID and IC, spirituality of man, loving others, believing in Christ (vs Ashtoroth) as Lord, metaphysics, theology, art, and music (especially).(I may be wrong, but that is what I perceive)

...I sought: everything I've observed that you stated seemed off topic (Haekel, vertebrates, etc.), having nothing to do with education stats.Peradventure, make it clear and/or summarize your views and/or stats about education.This message has been edited by Philip, 12-13-2005 06:00 PM

But you haven't "exposed" anything except your own ignorance of science. That apology doesn't sound very sincere, a mere two sentences after calling them "pompous", "proud" and "know-it-all". And one sentence before calling them "abrasive". I use my share of sarcasm, but only to the person's face, never behind their backs.You might try pondering the impact of your "Christian" witness. (You might also try applying your education to something more productive than railing against science.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC