News and Politics Forum

Thundersnow wrote:

How exactly will this set schools back? If students are interested in evolution they can research it on their own. How often do you use the theory of evolution?

It's right up there with FOIL for me.

Thundersnow wrote:

How exactly will this set schools back? If students are interested in evolution they can research it on their own. How often do you use the theory of evolution?

Because it introduces an element of faith into a scientific discussion.

Please, don't take my answer of your question as an invitation to initiate a debate. Frankly, and if this offends you I'm sorry... Anyone who has enough common sense to understand why this is such a stupid idea; already KNOWS that it's a stupid idea.

MC Escher wrote:

Would you be as sanguine about Law Schools taking time out of their Constitutional Law classes so that they could have an in depth discussion about the Second Amendment being a Collective Right?

I would.

The more light shed on the collective right theory, a position held by so many without having given it much examination simply because it meshes with their politics, the more widely its problems would be known.

I wouldn't even characterise that as "taking time out" of a con law class, since that sort of analysis is what a con law is about.

MC Escher wrote:

Do you think it would be fair to say your statement is true because The Law is essentially a philosophical discipline that is best understood through a discussion that examines the various aspects of a question; which in turn allows mistaken ideas to fall away because they are insupportable?

I wouldn't say that the study of law is philosophical in a way that distinguishes it from everything else, and I wouldn't even just say that the collect right position is simply mistaken.  Lots of smart people hold it in apparent seriousness and if were as simple as just being mistaken, Scalia could have been considerably more economical in his opinion.

So, rather than use the terms mistaken or unsupportable, I would describe collective and standard positions as respectively inferior and superior explanations.  One of the virtues of covering the collective right position in con law would be to acquaint the student with the competing inferior explanation and its problems, as well as how the superior explanation covers the same areas.  The student gets a sense of the development of the long conversation on the issue rather than indoctrination into a specific conclusion.

I believe that one reason you are an excellent advocate for the standard position is your exposure to the collective right position.  The Firing Line Forum is full of guys who are sure the you and I are right on the 2d Am, but could not begin to explain why except to repeat the words of the amendment (which on this point is not a terrible argument).

zukiphile wrote:

I believe that one reason you are an excellent advocate for the standard position is your exposure to the collective right position.

On a side note, while I thank you for your compliment; you are mistaken. I rarely even bother to listen to the collective right argument, because it's so moronic. I only did it for our friend as a courtesy and because he was wrong, not stupid.

I am an effective advocate for the second Amendment because I can READ. The truth is, as I know you are aware; In spite of the controversy over the 2nd it is actually one of those clear cut laws in our entire legal code. Possibly THE most.


EDIT: I'm looking forward to Gura. I'll come as early as I can manage.

Last edited by MC Escher (06-28-2008 08:35 PM)

I don't accept that science is just "I ran this experiment and this is what happened".  That doesn't account for evolution as a theory of man's origin or string theory or a good bit of science post Einstein.

A theory that cannot be used to make prediction that can be tested is just a pretty idea.





You would think someone would have an opportunity to make that point as part of fostering "an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes...".

First of all, none of this stuff belongs in an elementary school. Not because it may be a controversial subject, but rather because elementary schools are supposed to be building a basic educational foundation so that when the kids GET to Middle & High school they are prepared to absorb what to them will seem like huge amounts of information. In other words, dragging this stuff into the K-6 environment is a "Cart before the horse" situation. It can wait until Jr High/Middle School at least, when they begin "periods" with 6-8 specialized classes per day.

Secondly, my objection is not to the discussion itself or even to having it on school grounds. My objection is that it is not science. It doesn't matter if the "Intelligent Designer" is a Deity or a Little Green Man. It's not SCIENCE, it's PHILOSOPHY. The day you can produce a Burning Bush or a Flying Saucer, give me a call. In the meantime, "Intelligent Design" is a PHILOSOPHICAL issue and belongs in that class.





Whether a specific issue is best handled in a specific class, in a lab or an auditorium, by a lecturer or in argument, are pedagogic details the legislation appears not to address.
You noticed that too, huh?

My theory is that they know that they're lying through their fucking teeth about this being an honest discussion and are just looking for a way to sneak the bible back into the science classroom. What's YOUR theory?





I would encourage schools either not to introduce ideas like AGW into mandatory core curricula at all, or open the class to more than mere recitation of one explanation.

AGW?





Since every scientific theory rests on a foundation of premises never beyond question, and the act of understanding a theory requires a qualified belief in its premises, it cannot be that belief is inimical to genuine science.

Your premise is incorrect and you are confusing theory with Axiom.

An Axiom is that 1+1=2. It cannot be proven, so it must simply be accepted in order for Algebra to work.

As to a theory, it doesn't require ANY belief in it's correctness, in any amount. It's nothing more than a starting point by which you can begin to make predictions that you can then test. If Theory "A" is true, then if I do "B" & "C" then "D" should happen. If "D" does NOT happen then either my theory or my experiment is wrong. If that happens over the course of several experiments, then I probably need to throw the theory out.

IF, on the other hand; the experiment is a success, and I continue to have successes over the course of several experimental; then I can be said to be gathering supporting experimental data. The accumulation of sufficient experimental data suggests that the theory is correct and can be treated as proven science. UNTIL AND UNLESS a better theory comes along that does a better job of predicting outcomes.





Now, if what you do not prefer is a science teacher having to teach that the earth was created in seven days four millenia ago by God because the Bible says so, I agree and would not prefer that.  However, that is a thing far removed from the stated goal of the law in question, i.e.  "to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to "assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."

Again...
They're full of shit. They're trying to sneak the bible into the school.

However, if I decide to accept their statement at face value in order to move the discussion forward; then I would refer you back to what I have already said.

My objection is not to having the discussion in a school.

My objection IS to doing it in SCIENCE class.

Last edited by MC Escher (06-28-2008 11:21 PM)

Just a note, because a lot of otherwise bright people aren't aware of it...

Most words have two meanings: Denotational and Connotational.

Unless it's a "Term of Art", in which case it has a third and more detailed meaning within the context of the group that is using it as a "Term of Art".


In the context of Science, "Theory" is a Term of Art.


Take Gravity for instance.

You're an educated guy, so when you think of gravity you probably think of 32f/s/s. Or if you were Canadian you might think of 9.8m/s/s.  (That reads as meters per second per second.)

In fact, you are probably aware that it's not a static number but is in fact an ACCELERATION.


What you MAY not know is that the current theory of gravity is precisely that; a THEORY. Which is where we come into "Term of Art".

It's understood in scientific circles that when a scientist talks about the THEORY of Gravity that he's referring to to latest thinking about how Gravity works.

Again, as you probably know; we live in a four dimensional universe consisting of three spatial and one temporal dimension. This is generally called "Spacetime"; and the current THEORY is that gravity is the effect of mass on spacetime. Not weight, which is a function of Mass and the Universal Gravitational Constant: G = (6.67428 +/- 0.00067) x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2.
And yes, of course I had to look that up.

Oh and, in case the waters aren't muddy enough already, there's more than one type of gravity. There's Quantum Gravity for instance.

During the last couple of days I have been reading a really fascinating article about a new theory of Quantum Gravity that looks as if it might supplant Loop Quantum Gravity, Euclidean Quantum Gravity, Causal Dynamical Triangulations and String Theory.

So try to keep something in mind...

When a scientist talks about a THEORY, he may not know all the details, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the basic idea locked down.

In spite of all the work being done on quantum gravity these days; there is absolutely NO doubt. If you step off of the Golden Gate Bridge, then barring some intervention; you are going to get wet.

Qwinn wrote:

AGW?

Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

I'm forcing myself to remain silent through the rest of this, especially not pointing out how utterly weak an argument that consistently depends on substituting responding to the arguments of your political opponents by simply ascribing most venal motives to them is.

Qwinn

You know Quinn...

A few weeks back you gave me a challenge and I didn't respond to it. The REASON I didn't was because you were already acting like the typical asshole you are and I had promised someone else that I wouldn't make it any worse.

It has to do with your inabity to think for yourself and your amazing talent for presenting the thoughts of others in such a way as to make it appear that YOU are the guy who thought them up.


I had accused you flat out of being unable to think for yourself

You challenged me give you an example.

Well,
Here you go, dummy...


Start with post #116
http://www.npboards.com/thread/12679/cu … tes/page-5


And here:
Start with post #24
http://www.npboards.com/thread/12684/if … ing/page-1


You ran away 3 months ago, but your failure is still there.

MC Escher wrote:

I don't accept that science is just "I ran this experiment and this is what happened".  That doesn't account for evolution as a theory of man's origin or string theory or a good bit of science post Einstein.

A theory that cannot be used to make prediction that can be tested is just a pretty idea.

Which is very much the objection some have to evolution as the explanation of the origin of man being taught in science classes.

MC Escher wrote:

You would think someone would have an opportunity to make that point as part of fostering "an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes...".

***

Secondly, my objection is not to the discussion itself or even to having it on school grounds. My objection is that it is not science. It doesn't matter if the "Intelligent Designer" is a Deity or a Little Green Man. It's not SCIENCE, it's PHILOSOPHY. The day you can produce a Burning Bush or a Flying Saucer, give me a call. In the meantime, "Intelligent Design" is a PHILOSOPHICAL issue and belongs in that class.

This is the "wrong room" objection.  It makes no more sense than opposing a grammatical correction in gym class, or opposing serving pot roast for lunch because that is really dinner.

If a thing is worth teaching a child, the room and time of day are not material.

MC Escher wrote:

Whether a specific issue is best handled in a specific class, in a lab or an auditorium, by a lecturer or in argument, are pedagogic details the legislation appears not to address.
You noticed that too, huh?

My theory is that they know that they're lying through their fucking teeth about this being an honest discussion and are just looking for a way to sneak the bible back into the science classroom. What's YOUR theory?

My theory is that some science teachers instruct in the metaphysics, ethics and politics of their personal preference and that fostering lgical analysis addresses and limits this.

MC Escher wrote:

Since every scientific theory rests on a foundation of premises never beyond question, and the act of understanding a theory requires a qualified belief in its premises, it cannot be that belief is inimical to genuine science.

Your premise is incorrect and you are confusing theory with Axiom.

An Axiom is that 1+1=2. It cannot be proven, so it must simply be accepted in order for Algebra to work.

As to a theory, it doesn't require ANY belief in it's correctness, in any amount.

Math is a tough example because it is straight philosophy, not one of the material sciences.  1+1=2 is not itself axiomatic unless you assume that your numerical system is at least base 3.

Similarly, any scientific view will rest on conclusions it takes as given.  Chemists have long assumed the existence of electrons for their work, even without ever having observed them.  This work requires at least a qualified belief in the existence of electrons.  This belief is an integral and necessary part of a chemistry class.

MC Escher wrote:

Now, if what you do not prefer is a science teacher having to teach that the earth was created in seven days four millenia ago by God because the Bible says so, I agree and would not prefer that.  However, that is a thing far removed from the stated goal of the law in question, i.e.  "to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to "assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."

Again...
They're full of shit. They're trying to sneak the bible into the school.

Who is "they"?

MC Escher wrote:

However, if I decide to accept their statement at face value in order to move the discussion forward; then I would refer you back to what I have already said.

Without any contrary evidence, I would not assume a statute means something other than what it says.

MC Escher wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

How exactly will this set schools back? If students are interested in evolution they can research it on their own. How often do you use the theory of evolution?

Because it introduces an element of faith into a scientific discussion.

Please, don't take my answer of your question as an invitation to initiate a debate. Frankly, and if this offends you I'm sorry... Anyone who has enough common sense to understand why this is such a stupid idea; already KNOWS that it's a stupid idea.

To be honest I had skimmed the article and thought that they were simply not teaching origins of man.

Which is very much the objection some have to evolution as the explanation of the origin of man being taught in science classes.

Science can point to a vast collection of physical evidence collected over many years that traces the evolution of the various species on this planet. In the last few decades that includes a large body of DNA evidence. When ID proponents can point to hard physical evidence of the designer, then they'll have a place in science.
But again, I think you're missing a very important and surprisingly simple distinction here.
When evolution is taught in science classrooms the students are presented with the information on where the theory originated, the body of evidence that it has occurred and the predictions made that experiments were able to substantiate.
I'm talking about evidence that you can touch or see photographs of. Experiments on fast breeding life forms that actually be performed that can show adaptation to pressure. Not merely ideas... but tangible facts.





This is the "wrong room" objection.

No, I'm sorry... It's really not.




If a thing is worth teaching a child, the room and time of day are not material.

The room has nothing to do with it.
It's what's being DONE in the room.

A Science Class or a Philosophy class are not defined by the physical environment, they are defined by their subject matter.












Math is a tough example because it is straight philosophy, not one of the material sciences.  1+1=2 is not itself axiomatic unless you assume that your numerical system is at least base 3.
No, it's a science, a very rigid one. It's just not a PHYSICAL science.
Also, 1+1=2 is ALWAYS axiomatic. It can't be proven, it can only be demonstrated.
(I say this as a failed mathematician who never got past Analysis because he got stuck on Discrete Structures.)
And "Base", as in Base Two (Binary), Base Three (Trinary), Base Eight (Octal), Base Ten (Decimal), or Base 16 (Hexadecimal) are completely different from Experimental Mathematics. "Bases" refer to how many digits there are in each exponential column.
I'll be happy to draw this out for you when I see you, but it's too difficult to demonstrate this in this forum.
BTW, there IS a Mathematics where 1+1=3. Some Japanese guy was working on it the last I looked into it and it had application in certain kinds of computer modeling. I don't remember too much about it though. That's really esoteric stuff.




Similarly, any scientific view will rest on conclusions it takes as given.  Chemists have long assumed the existence of electrons for their work, even without ever having observed them.  This work requires at least a qualified belief in the existence of electrons.  This belief is an integral and necessary part of a chemistry class.

Outside of knowing how to make things go boom, I don't know a lot about chemistry.
I do know that if you are saying what it APPEARS to me that you are saying, that there are some problems with your statement.

Would you be kind enough to back up and take another pass at that?
I don't want to go down a wrong path because I'm misinterpreting you.





Who is "they"?

The people behind this legislation and other similar legislation.
Who else would "They" be?


Hey man, check your PMs....
I gotta ask you something.

Thundersnow wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

How exactly will this set schools back? If students are interested in evolution they can research it on their own. How often do you use the theory of evolution?

Because it introduces an element of faith into a scientific discussion.

Please, don't take my answer of your question as an invitation to initiate a debate. Frankly, and if this offends you I'm sorry... Anyone who has enough common sense to understand why this is such a stupid idea; already KNOWS that it's a stupid idea.

To be honest I had skimmed the article and thought that they were simply not teaching origins of man.

Ahhh.