Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,352 Year: 3,609/9,624 Month: 480/974 Week: 93/276 Day: 21/23 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 98 (432729)
11-07-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Macuahuitl
11-07-2007 9:00 PM


The philosophy of science
Should old age dates be taught as fact in the science classroom? Teaching old age dates as fact is ignorant of alternate logical and even scientific interpretations of radiometric dating results, considering the parable of the candle.
Science is tentative. What is fact today is often proved false tomorrow. The point is that you have to follow where the evidence leads, even if you currently have incomplete pictures.
Should age estimates be taught as unassailable fact? Maybe. The only thing that I'm concerned about is people systematically usurping evidence to the contrary, just because its a dissenting opinion.
But some say that science is exempt from the market place of ideals. Perhaps it is. But like I said, what's true today may be proved false tomorrow. The best we can do is understand as much as we can now, always in search for all the puzzle pieces.
I understand that there are many different beliefs out there about origins and they can't all be taught in science (partially as some are unscientific), so may i suggest we just don't teach any viewpoints in school etc., then if people want to find out what the origins of man and the universe are they can teach themselves at home etc. thus come to a more unbias approach to a conclusion on the matter. That way it won't seem as if teaching only evolution is indoctrination. Furthermore, "It is the height of Bigotry to have only one theory of origins taught in our schools" (Clarence Darrow, see http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0354.htm - although this quote is often refuted, it is still at the height of bigotry).
There is no doubt that a bias exists-- that science is only about empiricism. There is a very basic philosophical context to all science that no one can get around. But you do realize that your claim of bias is also inherently biased as well, don't you?
You are clearly leaning in one direction. That's not necessarily a horrible thing, since we all do that to a degree, but if you are going to call out someone else for bias, it would be well with you to see those same patterns in your philosophical assumptions too.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Macuahuitl, posted 11-07-2007 9:00 PM Macuahuitl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-08-2007 7:25 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 98 (432846)
11-08-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Adequate
11-08-2007 7:25 AM


Re: The philosophy of science
Nemesis Juggernaut --- are you turning into an evolutionist?
Well, to some extent I've always been an evolutionist-- just not a macroevolutionist.
Your posts have gotten saner and saner
Thanks.... I think?
are you finally going to switch sides?
Only if compelled to. Put it this way. I see the bulk of evolution as either being common sense or prefacing details in favor of one side but not the other.
The only convincing argument in defense of macroevolution, in my opinion, is shared genetic mistakes. The reason being is that organisms that share similarities may just share similarities with one another without being the least bit related. Its subjective because at some point, one organism will always appear more closely related to another. That does not necessarily mean one is related. But with shared mistakes, the preponderance of evidence specifically leads one to the other in a chain of evidence, if you will.
As for my mild castigations, I was simply pointing out to the OP that while (s)he was calling someone bias, (s)he was using bias at the same time.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-08-2007 7:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-09-2007 1:30 AM Hyroglyphx 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