Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
41 online now:
Diomedes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Stile (4 members, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,010 Year: 9,758/23,288 Month: 773/1,544 Week: 165/322 Day: 19/66 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 91 (209244)
05-18-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by EZscience
05-17-2005 5:25 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
"..no designer allowed.."
It's more like "no designer needed - please apply to the theology department".

Same difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by EZscience, posted 05-17-2005 5:25 PM EZscience has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4376 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 47 of 91 (209266)
05-18-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
05-18-2005 12:10 AM


Re: This is great!
Thanks, that was good.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 12:10 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4376 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 91 (209267)
05-18-2005 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by coffee_addict
05-17-2005 6:19 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
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.

This utter lack of faith in human comprehension and reinforcement of low expectations is extremely disturbing to me. Why would understanding how arguments are assembled, or how evidence is used within a logical framework and tested to draw a conclusion, be any harder than learning math or history?

As it stands math uses the same instructional techniques and ideas as logic, it is a form of logic. If your claim is true we ought to abandon math as well.

The idea that it is better to teach kids to argue anything out of ignorance is astounding to me. Why even have schools at all at that point?

And I see you are from Illinois? Wait a second... is this Troy?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by coffee_addict, posted 05-17-2005 6:19 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 91 (209271)
05-18-2005 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Limbo
05-18-2005 2:07 AM


Re: You want special treatment?
quote:
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!


There are plenty of "heretics" who have already put their reputation well and truly in the ID camp. In terms of reputations and careers in mainstream science the likes of Behe et al have nothing to lose and everything to gain by by making definite actual predictions of how ID will produce different experimental results to mainstream science, and then getting them tested. If they actually find an anomaly that mainstream science can't explain I'll expect that mainstream scientists will examine it thoroughly, and if the anomaly (actually, preferably several anomalies) holds up under the scrutiny of science then, and only then, is there a case for re-writing the text books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 2:07 AM Limbo has not yet responded

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 91 (209272)
05-18-2005 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
05-18-2005 12:10 AM


Re: This is great!
STEP 6: Teenage boy and girl exclaiming "How did we get this baby? There was no stork that visited us! No one told us that we could have children without a stork!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 12:10 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 91 (209275)
05-18-2005 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Limbo
05-17-2005 7:28 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
Because ID is a variation of the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method.

OK, here's a grossly simplified version of the underlying philosophy of the scientific method.

1) The world exists, and consists of material objects, here "material" includes matter and energy (there may be non-material, aka spiritual, objects as well)

2) Those material objects in an ordered and predictable manner (any non-material objects may, or may not, behave in such an ordered and predictable manner)

3) By studying those material objects it is possible to learn something about the way in which they behave (non-material objects may, or may not, be amenable to such study depending on whether or not they are also ordered and predictable)

4) Knowledge about how things behave allows us to formulate hypotheses and theories about such things. If they are truly ordered and predictable then such theories and hypotheses can be used to make predictions about the outcomes of further observations.

5) The outcomes of further observations can be used to judge the accuracy of hypotheses and theories, and lead to more refined hypotheses and theories. If the object being studied is not ordered and predictable, further observations are irrelevant to testing of such theories and predictions.

OK. So, where does ID fit in? If the Designer is ordered and predictable then, I suppose, we can investigate the nature of the Designer using the above approach. Whether you want to call that "science" depends to an extent on whether or not you want to limit science solely to the investigation of the material. If, however, the Designer is a free agent and hence able to act in a manner that is not limited to acting in an entirely predictable manner then the above approach is useless in investigating either the nature of the Designer (except, possibly, to demonstrate that he isn't confined by physical laws) or any effect the Designer has caused. Which, considering as the Designer seems to rarely be described as bound by physical laws and hence predictable and amenable (in principal if not in practice) to laboratory testing, is where ID differs from the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 7:28 PM Limbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:12 AM Dr Cresswell has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 52 of 91 (209277)
05-18-2005 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Limbo
05-18-2005 1:02 AM


I find it ironic that you would mention Galileo. I would like to draw your attention to this:

http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/isms/a0000288.html

And why is what someone with a PhD in Germanic languages has to say on the subject germaine? I think this goes toa point raised in another thread, since there is just so much stuff on the web published by anyone who can write in html, or not in many cases, just linking to a web site is not really support for a position.

Why should Dr. Martin's pronouncements be given any more weight than my own or Ned's?

Me writes:

The persons who most resemble Galileo in this day and age are the kids that drop coins from the tops of long stairwells.

As the dearly departed Jerry Don Bauer would surely recognise, this is one of the oldest arguments from analogy in the book.

They laughed at Galileo, and he was right.
They laugh at me.
Therefore, I am right.

Michael Shermer writes:

They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. Yes, well, they also laughed at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right.

So how does that site in anyway address the point that the church impeded and persecuted Galileo for his research? It is in fact impressive that it fails ro mention the church once, simply characterising those who opposed Galileo as "educated, intelligent men defending the scientific status quo."

In fact that piece seems to be positioning itself to argue that those researching ID should be given 2000 years of grace twiddling their thumbs until the 'patented design detector' is invented and the supporters of ID are vindicated.

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-18-2005 06:13 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 1:02 AM Limbo has not yet responded

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 91 (209278)
05-18-2005 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Cresswell
05-18-2005 5:46 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Thank you Dr, very informative.

Does this method apply to all fields, such as historical sciences, or quantum theory? Are there fields of science where the standard method doesnt apply? Wouldnt it be possible to use a different method for Origin sciences, one that doesnt rule out design a priori? If it looks designed, should we really ignore that implication?

It was Kansas State University biologist Scott Todd who said that “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

Obviously, then, naturalism is not a deduction from experimental observations but a defining philosophy, right? Who knows how much has been excluded over the years from many different fields of science all in the name of the scientific method.

This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 06:14 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Cresswell, posted 05-18-2005 5:46 AM Dr Cresswell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Wounded King, posted 05-18-2005 6:16 AM Limbo has responded
 Message 57 by Dr Cresswell, posted 05-18-2005 6:36 AM Limbo has not yet responded
 Message 58 by EZscience, posted 05-18-2005 6:47 AM Limbo has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-18-2005 6:55 AM Limbo has responded
 Message 65 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 8:21 AM Limbo has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 54 of 91 (209279)
05-18-2005 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-18-2005 6:12 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Todd is obviously plainly wrong. If he stipulated a supernatural designer he might have a case, but intelligent design itself does not neccessarily require supernatural intervention.

Once again, beware the Raelians.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:12 AM Limbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:22 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 91 (209280)
05-18-2005 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Wounded King
05-18-2005 6:16 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
[...] but intelligent design itself does not neccessarily require supernatural intervention.

Can I quote you on that? ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Wounded King, posted 05-18-2005 6:16 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Wounded King, posted 05-18-2005 6:51 AM Limbo has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3710 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 56 of 91 (209282)
05-18-2005 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Limbo
05-18-2005 1:02 AM


Limbo writes:

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?

You understand not the first thing about science.
It is ALL falsifiable by definition or it can't be considered science.
A theory/proposition/experiment is only accepted as 'science' if it is presented in a way that is testable, so as to yield results that could point in either of at least 2 possible directions: supporting the hypothesis, or not-supporting it.
ID doesn't get to play because it doesn't obey these rules.

This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-18-2005 05:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 1:02 AM Limbo has not yet responded

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 91 (209284)
05-18-2005 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-18-2005 6:12 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
Does this method apply to all fields, such as historical sciences, or quantum theory?
As I said, it was a grossly simplified description. Different fields of science would demonstrate slight varients within that broad picture. So, for example, in physics or chemistry observations will be from laboratory experiments under controlled conditions, where it's relatively simple to constrain the measurements to potentially falsify a theory. On the other hand observations in paleantology and astrophysics are much more subject to chance (A prediction can be made that if a particular type of star goes super-nova that a particular neutrino flux would be produced, but we can't make stars go supernova to order to test that so we need to rely on waiting for a suitable supernova to be observed. Likewise, we can predict that certain intermediate creatures would have existed in the evolutionary chain, but there's no guarantee any of them were fossilised or will be dug up any time soon). Some theories will be amenable to expression in mathematics, others will be harder to express mathematically.

quote:
If it looks designed, should we really ignore that implication?
I'd consider apparent design to be a valid observation. Something like the Theory of Evolution would say that populations evolve under the pressure of natural selection, and so be well suited to the environment they live in - if the apparent design observed is that life forms are suited to the environments they live in then that's an observation that the ToE predicts.

quote:
It was Kansas State University biologist Scott Todd who said that “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
Well, I don't know of Scott Todd. But, there are people on both sides of the argument who often fail to grasp the issues properly (Dawkins is another one - I'm sure there's a discussion on this forum somewhere discussing Dawkins). That's a good reason to give people a good grounding in Philosophy of Science - it stops scientists and non-scientists a reduced basis for making stupid comments.

As I said, some people do exclude the non-material from science a priori. That's something I would consider to be a false step. I would exclude the non-material from science on the basis that getting to the point where you say "there's an intelligent designer" stops the ability to produce a theory that can make testable predictions. If such a position is science, it's the end of science. I'd almost say that, by definition, an intelligence does not operate in a way that is predictable and testable.

I happen to believe that there is an intelligence behind the world. But to invoke that intelligence to explain observational data isn't science, it's religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:12 AM Limbo has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3710 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 58 of 91 (209285)
05-18-2005 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-18-2005 6:12 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Limbo writes:

Does this method apply to all fields, such as historical sciences, or quantum theory?

Yes

Limbo writes:

Are there fields of science where the standard method doesnt apply?

No.

Limbo writes:

Wouldnt it be possible to use a different method for Origin sciences, one that doesnt rule out design a priori?

No.

Limbo writes:

naturalism is not a deduction from experimental observations but a defining philosophy, right?

Wrong. It is a 'methodology'.

Limbo writes:

Who knows how much has been excluded over the years from many different fields of science all in the name of the scientific method.

Only things like ID that, by virtue of their formulation, were never science to begin with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:12 AM Limbo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ProfessorR, posted 05-18-2005 11:33 AM EZscience has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 59 of 91 (209287)
05-18-2005 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Limbo
05-18-2005 6:22 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Can I quote you on that?

If you like. I'm not sure why you think anyone would consider it controversial. The fundamental concepts of ID do not require supernatural intervention. Many of the proponents of ID clearly do favour a supernatural Designer however, a very specific one in many cases. And there is much evidence to suggest that many proponents are making use of the ID movement in order to intoduce the supernatural into science.

As I have pointed out several times there are other movements, like the Raelians, that believe that the intelligent design we see was the work of scientifically advanced extraterrestrial life forms. An alien designer could be entirely consistent with many ID scenarios and does not require any supernatural or immatterial entities whatsoever. ID can be an entirely naturalistic science, but it is not presented that way in a significant or coherent manner, i.e. a lack of mechanisms and explanatory value and an over reliance on some rather dodgy inferences.

I'm also not sure why you think quoting me is any more sensible a tactic than quoting a Germanic languages scholar, but its your call.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:22 AM Limbo has not yet responded

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 1902 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 60 of 91 (209289)
05-18-2005 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-18-2005 6:12 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Does this method apply to all fields, such as historical sciences, or quantum theory?

I may be wrong, but I don't think is history is a science, but an art (one of the humanities): I've never heard of anyone gaining a BSc in history. It certainly applies to quantum theory, so far as we can observe events at that level.

“even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

Could we know a little more about Mr Todd, and the context of the quote? A link would be nice.

Obviously, then, naturalism is not a deduction from experimental observations but a defining philosophy, right?

That would depend on if Mr Todd's quote is representative of all scientists, which I doubt. I'd suggest a different quote, if we need one:

Francis Bacon writes:

There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms: this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.

Although he should have left the chicken alone.

Who knows how much has been excluded over the years from many different fields of science all in the name of the scientific method.

Yeah, I always wanted one of those pyramid-power razorblade shapeners, but they don't make them anymore... :(

This message has been edited by Dead Parrot, 05-18-2005 11:00 PM


Mat 27:5 And he went and hanged himself
Luk 10:37 Go, and do thou likewise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:12 AM Limbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 7:06 AM Dead Parrot has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020