Buffy Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 The action by the Kansas School Board specificallly as I mentioned above is to redefine the scientific method to allow anything that involves "a systematic method of continuing investigation,'' without any reference to hypothesis and experimental methods.We do this now. Most of linguistics. Most of paleontology. Most of archaeology. Punctuated equilibrium. Most of geology. Most of meteorology. So what?Read the above posts by several of us: the problem is the broadness of this definition allows just about anything to be called science, including the Raelian "hypothesis" of alien cloning. On the other hand, the scientific arenas which you mention here (with the exception of PE which is discussed in the previous post), all do indeed include falsifiable hypotheses. With these sciences, hypotheses such as "English is derived from French and German" can be tested, and shown false with the appropriate data. The absence of *all* datapoints allows the theories to be modified over time. OTOH, in the case of ID the absence of data is posited as the *proof*, which is "not science." Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Read the above posts by several of us: the problem is the broadness of this definition allows just about anything to be called science, including the Raelian "hypothesis" of alien cloning. On the other hand, the scientific arenas which you mention here (with the exception of PE which is discussed in the previous post), all do indeed include falsifiable hypotheses.......I think the Raelians, etc, are a bit of a dodge. If we wanted to characterize PE as the falsification example for gradualism (as it seems to be) why could we not posit that dataset as a support for ID? It seems to me that we are still teaching gradualism when the data for it looks remarkably thin. Personally, I think ID will break into 2-3 camps over the next 20 years, as all technical discussions do (just as the discussion over PE drove a number of different avenues of investigation). If the Raelians want to investigate proof for alien involvement, let them. If they produce something, show it. Again, so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 You're absolutely right: PE is a description of an issue that is seeking a set of hypotheses to explain it. ID, however, is described as a hypothesis. If ID were simply described as the "issue of the lack of an explanation for the apparent complexity of life forms," then it would be on equal terms with PE. But you notice its called "Intelligent Design" so its very name says that it is an explanation not a problem statement.You're actually picking on the words they chose? So you would be OK if they adopted your definition (above) and changed the name to "potential cause for phyla punctuations"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 You're actually picking on the words they chose? So you would be OK if they adopted your definition (above) and changed the name to "potential cause for phyla punctuations"?Heck I was following your explanation to try to get you to agree with me! ;) And now you go and try to argue the opposite... But I'd still argue that "Punctuated Equilibrium" is a name that is *descriptive* of the data that indicates that evolution proceeded in spurts followed by periods of stability, but does not posit a hypothesis for why. OTOH, ID specifically says, "it was designed by an intelligence" which is an explanation, although one that is not falsifiable. Yes, I do think words mean something. They're important! ;) Although I know you're trying to say that I'm a stick in the mud die-hard science bigot who wants to "stop all debate," its really just getting the ID folks to stop thinking they can get a free ride. I agree with you that they *might* be right about their conclusions, but they're taking short cuts that damage *all* of scientific inquiry, just to get their way. And its subject to the good ol' law of Unintended Consequences. Call me Chicken Little, but I think defending a well proven mechanism that has been at the core of the advancement of human intelligence, society, government, and economics, from those with selfish, short-sighted goals is worth it! Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 ...ID specifically says, "it was designed by an intelligence" which is an explanation, although one that is not falsifiable.... Yes, I do think words mean something.Actually, I will concede the importance of words. I am not yet sure that the ID proponents cannot design some experiments that have falsifiable elementsAlthough I know you're trying to say that I'm a stick in the mud die-hard science bigot who wants to "stop all debate," its really just getting the ID folks to stop thinking they can get a free ride.Far be it from me to suggest such a thing. I think you are an unevenly left-wing bigot, not a science bigot. ;);););)Call me Chicken Little, but I think defending a well proven mechanism that has been at the core of the advancement of human intelligence, society, government, and economics, from those with selfish, short-sighted goals is worth it!OK, CL. I think the odds of the ID gang actually overturning the Scientific Method are, how should I say this, asymptotic toward the x- axis? But it is fun to watch you worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Actually, I will concede the importance of words. I am not yet sure that the ID proponents cannot design some experiments that have falsifiable elementsYou may be right! I only ask that they try instead of trying to get a free ride.Far be it from me to suggest such a thing. I think you are an unevenly left-wing bigot, not a science bigot. ;);););)Whoo! Good thing I'm a lifelong registered Republican! That gives me the right to be a bigot! ;) I do admit to being from the leftist Howard Baker/Nelson Rockefeller wing though....OK, CL. I think the odds of the ID gang actually overturning the Scientific Method are, how should I say this, asymptotic toward the x- axis? But it is fun to watch you worry about it.Glad you're enjoying it! Its not so much that I worry, its that I enjoy the fight (besides the ability to post pad so I can get to 1000 ;) ). I actually agree with you, but there's nothing wrong with being vigilant. On some battles I like to make a stand, on others, I think its better to let the mistakes be made and have people learn the hard way.... Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 ... Good thing I'm a lifelong registered Republican! That gives me the right to be a bigot! ;) I do admit to being from the leftist Howard Baker/Nelson Rockefeller wing though....Scary. I would probably have categorized myself as a Bakerite myself. Not a Rockefeller guy, however....Its not so much that I worry, its that I enjoy the fight (besides the ability to post pad so I can get to 1000 ;) ) Hah!! Finally admitting the ulterior motive!!!!!I actually agree with you, but there's nothing wrong with being vigilant. If we keep agreeing like this, it is really going to mess up the cadence of the debate.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Bio and Buffy getting along..... *starts humming Buffy and Bio sitting in a tree.....* ;) The problem arises when a multitude of "theories" some valid but on the fringes and others just pure-pseudo-science get injected into an already overloaded subject. On average natural selection/ evolution is hit for about 3 days in a standard curriculum. It is not really the meat of the subject. I think I only had about a week discussion about the process in my AP Bio class in high school. Just as we really do not delve into string theory or M-theory (and only briefly usually touch relativity) in secondary school, these are subjects on the higher end of the science spectrum that generally do not have that much impact on the "normal" students life. Those that are intersted can begin to delve. I think the point should be made that pretty much ALL SCIENCE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND VULNERABLE TO REVISION. C1ay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Bio and Buffy getting along..... *starts humming Buffy and Bio sitting in a tree.....* ;) True, but remember she already accused me of lecherousness. Can't read too much into this conviviality...I think the point should be made that pretty much ALL SCIENCE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND VULNERABLE TO REVISION.Goodness, this is a good point. I hope most science instructors think this, and broadcast the notion to their students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Bio and Buffy getting along.....*starts humming Buffy and Bio sitting in a tree.....*True, but remember she already accused me of lecherousness. Can't read too much into this convivialityYou are a lech! "Lemme see your picture! <drool/> ;) " and then its somehow *my* "self-image" problem if I don't. What manipulative, putrid, MCP-like behavior. How unbecoming of "James Bond"!!! Pppppbbbbt!!!! Yeah, Fish, I think he's been thinking of this more as "Taming of the Shrew!" Surprise! <snaps whip/> Untameably,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 You are a lech! "Lemme see your picture! <drool/> ;) " and then its somehow *my* "self-image" problem if I don't. What manipulative, putrid, MCP-like behavior. How unbecoming of "James Bond"!!! Pppppbbbbt!!!!You see, Fish- The conviviality is pretty short lived. And just think. This is all because I wanted to see her picture. Us old-school guys stilll think that ladies like attention. Imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Untameably,BuffyEmphasis added. That is one of your best virtues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Emphasis added. That is one of your best virtues.Thank you! 11...,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 You see, Fish- The conviviality is pretty short lived. Oh don't be so thin skinned, Bio! That was *quite* convivial!Us old-school guys stilll think that ladies like attention. Imagine that.Attention yes, staring at our breasts, no....You "old-fashioned guys" are clueless at how silly you look/sound sometimes, and let me tell ya' it ain't your age, its your *attitude*... Cheers! ;)Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Oh don't be so thin skinned, Bio! That was *quite* convivial!I am just so sensitive..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 And what the hell does all that silliness have to do with the subject at hand? Sounds more like biology admixtured with social science to me. :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 A very funny analogy about this.... http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sfile=td050514&vts=51820050808 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts