Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 496 of 1053 (752434)
03-11-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Stile
03-11-2015 11:31 AM


Re: Science history book recommendations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Stile, posted 03-11-2015 11:31 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2015 12:16 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 502 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2015 2:58 PM Tangle has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 497 of 1053 (752436)
03-11-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Tangle
03-11-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Science history book recommendations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2015 12:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2015 1:02 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 498 of 1053 (752437)
03-11-2015 12:23 PM


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:
In science experiments, assumptions are critical. But if the starting assumption is false, the ensuing experiment will lead a scientist to draw a flawed conclusion, even if his calculations appear correct. Willard Libby, the developer of carbon dating, drew his conclusions based on the assumption that the earth was millions of years old. He calculated that it would take about 30,000 years for an atmosphere’s 14C/12C ratio to reach equilibrium. When he discovered that earth’s ratio was not in equilibrium, meaning it must be younger than 30,000 years, he dismissed it as an experimental error!
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 12:58 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied
 Message 507 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2015 5:30 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied
 Message 508 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2015 6:03 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 499 of 1053 (752447)
03-11-2015 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by ThinAirDesigns
03-11-2015 12:23 PM


anudder point.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-11-2015 12:23 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-11-2015 3:19 PM jar has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 500 of 1053 (752448)
03-11-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Coyote
03-11-2015 12:16 PM


Re: Science history book recommendations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2015 12:16 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 501 of 1053 (752462)
03-11-2015 2:20 PM


Moderator On Duty
I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. Just a few requests:
  • Please stay on topic.
  • Please address rebuttals. Responding to a message means addressing its arguments, not just using it as a vehicle for rehashing your own arguments.
  • Please let the moderator handle moderator issues.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 502 of 1053 (752466)
03-11-2015 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Tangle
03-11-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Science history book recommendations
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 ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2015 12:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2015 3:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 503 of 1053 (752467)
03-11-2015 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by jar
03-11-2015 12:58 PM


Re: anudder point.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 12:58 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2015 4:52 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 504 of 1053 (752469)
03-11-2015 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by RAZD
03-11-2015 2:58 PM


Re: Science history book recommendations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2015 2:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-11-2015 4:02 PM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 505 of 1053 (752473)
03-11-2015 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Tangle
03-11-2015 3:38 PM


Re: Science history book recommendations
Whoops, just saw the moderator warning and this isn't on topic.
Hidden, peek for content.
Edited by Cat Sci, : Abort!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2015 3:38 PM Tangle has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 506 of 1053 (752479)
03-11-2015 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by ThinAirDesigns
03-11-2015 3:19 PM


"herstories" of women scientists
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
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-11-2015 3:19 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-11-2015 8:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 507 of 1053 (752483)
03-11-2015 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by ThinAirDesigns
03-11-2015 12:23 PM


what defines science? curiosity
Doug Batchelor prominent SDA YEC 'oracle'(LINK) uses the term when talking about Willard Libby and Carbon Dating:
quote:
In science experiments, assumptions are critical. But if the starting assumption is false, the ensuing experiment will lead a scientist to draw a flawed conclusion, even if his calculations appear correct. Willard Libby, the developer of carbon dating, drew his conclusions based on the assumption that the earth was millions of years old. He calculated that it would take about 30,000 years for an atmosphere’s 14C/12C ratio to reach equilibrium. When he discovered that earth’s ratio was not in equilibrium, meaning it must be younger than 30,000 years, he dismissed it as an experimental error!
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-11-2015 12:23 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 508 of 1053 (752484)
03-11-2015 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by ThinAirDesigns
03-11-2015 12:23 PM


"experimental error"
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 tails

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-11-2015 12:23 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2015 7:43 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 509 of 1053 (752489)
03-11-2015 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by RAZD
03-11-2015 6:03 PM


Re: "experimental error"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2015 6:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2015 8:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 510 of 1053 (752492)
03-11-2015 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by Dr Adequate
03-11-2015 7:43 PM


Re: "experimental error"
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.
  1. the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.
  2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def 6).
  3. Mathematics . the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def 5).
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
  1. the state or quality of being precise.
  2. accuracy; exactness: to arrive at an estimate with precision.
  3. mechanical or scientific exactness: a lens ground with precision.
  4. punctiliousness; strictness: precision in one's business dealings.
  5. Mathematics . the degree to which the correctness of a quantity is expressed. Compare accuracy (def 3).
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2015 7:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-11-2015 8:52 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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