Science Under Siege

[Buffy]

Hey, South, all good points. I could only disagree with what you're saying if I was taking the absolutist position of saying only one "truth" should be taught, which I'm not, so I won't disagree! Its important to realize that teaching of critical thinking is not limited to teaching only the method, the critical step in any learning process is to show examples and then provide homework or projects or papers to write where the student has to think for themselves. And to drive the point home, this should be done with both clear-cut as well as grey issues, so that people get the feel for both, just as they'll run into in the real world.

 

The only thing I like to draw the line on is exactly what you point out:

...the reciprocal of religious freedom is a church state, even if the mandate ends up as non-religious. What would qualify as impossible is the control of the peoples' beliefs. Even to attempt it... how inhumane can you get?

Which is why when something veers into religious belief, its not a good idea to "teach" it. The point I'm trying to make of course is that there is a distinction between science and belief systems, and what is of concern to me is the the notion that belief systems are trying to gain a foothold is school curricula by saying "we're exactly like science! its all the same thing!" This ends up being a big can of worms of course, because you all of a sudden have to give "equal time" to everyone, so we gotta get the Hindu and Wiccan views in too (although of course this is simplified by the folks that say that America is a "Christian Nation" so all other theologies should be left out because they are minor as well as being wrong!). Attacking this notion by saying "science is a religious belief" does a disservice to science and society as well as deeply religious scientists past present and future. What I'd really like to get a discussion going on here is what is that distinction that differentiates the two, And I'm convinced that the core of that is what is the *essence* of critical thinking, and acceptance of a scientific consensus as a foundation is an absolute requirement.

 

I think you catch most of my drift when you say:

I'm not suggesting we leave them ignorant of current scientific consensus. But, verification would be rather non-involved without comparitive alternatives. You need a couple crash-test dummies that they can sink their mental teeth into and really draw blood, if you know what I mean. Seriously, throw them the easy ones, and they will get a quick feel for discovering superior reasonability. You don't throw three years olds a 90mph fastball, do you?

And unfortunately, what people who are advocating certain contentious issues be introduced to 13 year olds, *not* as part of a critical thinking exercise but as simply a requirement to expose them to one other wholly unsubstantiated belief system without any pointers as to its inapplicapbility as a scientific theory is tantamount to that fastball.

 

I have a hard time believing that the best way to teach critical thinking is simply to say, as some others argue, "here's the methodology, look at all of the alternative theories and come to your own conclusions, and we don't want to give you *any* examples because that would be biased: you're smart enough to figure it out on your own." Why bother teaching *any* math or science, its all "beliefs" right? It all might be overturned tomorrow by the next discovery since none of it is "proven", and if we told you *anything* about why most people seem to believe one of these many theories that we're throwing at you, then you'll think we're biased and you will lose all faith in anything. Just trust your brain."

 

Oh how I wish we *could* do that, its just that it seems to me that it doesn't fit in with a reality where most folks don't care and never will. Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[paultrr]

This issue seems a little inflated. In spite of the hoopla over events like the introduciton of ID into schools, this is much ado about nothing.

 

A substantal number of basic science sorts are theistic. This does not mitigate their impact on science.

 

I've mentioned this myself before about not everyone out there who subscribes to science, evolution, etc at the same time has no belief in say a Creator of some type. I would say that the most vocal/ published amd known tend to have no belief in such. But over the years I have met many who do. Einstein, in a couple of comments he made irrespective of his own view about God did not see science and religion as having to be in conflect. I also see some major differences between some of the more recent ID ideas and much older more traditional fundamentalist Seven-day creationism. Evangelical Christianity is not all of the hard core fundamentalist attitude and one needs to bear that fact in mind when you discuss how to counter-attack, so to speak.

 

I think that as long as the normal methods and practices of science(ie Theory and trial by observational and experimental evidence) are followed open dialog on alternative theories to the standard evolutionary picture are possible. We, at this current juncture in physics have many alternative theories and counter theories going when it comes to the search for what's termed the Grand Unified Theory or TOE. None of this is found counterproductive to the search for the truth. What we need to be on guard against is a rejection of the scientific methods themselves in favor of pseudo-science or religious dogmaticism. But within the framework of acceptable scientific method and practice there is room for open discussion and debate.

[paultrr]

I rather agree with the heart of what Buffy is saying in that last post. People, teachers especially, have the right to present science as they see the facts. We scientists tend to get very much emotional about our science as do those who are religious get emotional about their beliefs. One can present alternative ideas and at the same time make a clear presentation of exactly how oneself see it without having to step on toes are be politically incorrect, so to speak. Religion has not got the right to dictate how one believes any more than say athiesm has to right to tell everyone they cannot believe.

 

The heart of real religion is faith which makes it more a personal thing than anything else. The heart of the Christian faith is a relationship or at least its supposed to be. Here again we are talking about something that is personal. One can have a personal relationship and still subscribe to science. Science is a tool of discovery. The one who the relationship is supposed to be with is called Truth. The two do not have to be exclusive of each other. Nor do they always have to be seen as enemies.

 

I am against fundamentalistic attitudes weither it comes from an athiest or a Christian or some other faith out there. I have problems with the current ID presentation. But at the same time its a far better approach than the older literal seven day camps version of science. Their approach lacked any real science behind it. At least the ID camp is willing to admit perhaps "God" used evolution as his tool. What they want to debate is the issue of how evolution really works which in some ways is perhaps worth debating. New Ageism is more pseudo-science than anything else. Sorry you closet New Agers. But that is the bottom line there. And I personally divorce real paganism/pantheism from the New Age movement and believe it would be in their best interest to do the same also. As for Christians having any part with such a movement as that of the New Age group there nuts if they do. Chrstians would be far better off siding with us scientists since at least both groups are after the truth, not mysticism.

[HydrogenBond]

I like the compromise between ID and Evolution; ordered evolution based on science. ID gives science a hint on how this is possible. I will share the secret. Assume for the sake of argument, that life only had 1 million years to form (start with this erroneous assumption). Can you use your ingenuity to come up with a rational scenario that would allow it to happen. Random no longer works because there is not enough time. One needs a logical and very orderred path. This path won't refect the truth of evolution because of the erroneous time scale, but it might tell us something new about the orderring principle of cellular integration that will shed light on evoluton.

[Southtown]

And unfortunately, what people who are advocating certain contentious issues be introduced to 13 year olds, *not* as part of a critical thinking exercise but as simply a requirement to expose them to one other wholly unsubstantiated belief system without any pointers as to its inapplicapbility as a scientific theory is tantamount to that fastball.

I think UncleAl came up with a viable solution for the younger students in our hypothetical education scenario. Also, consider my response to it.

 

I have a hard time believing that the best way to teach critical thinking is simply to say, as some others argue, "here's the methodology, look at all of the alternative theories and come to your own conclusions, and we don't want to give you *any* examples because that would be biased: you're smart enough to figure it out on your own."

I agree, really, even though I don't believe that all things "evolved" from a big bang of whatever substance. Students need to know the current theories of course as well as their strengths and weaknesses (as indicated by evidence.) Of course, only those with some supporting evidence should be allowed if we're attempting an evidence-focused approach.

 

Indeed, kids need to learn the theories more fully, believe it or not. Students should be taken through a theory's conception and evolution (think BB and relativity,) all the way to its eventual demise or acceptance. This would be a great tool in showing students the progress of a methodology based on evidence and why things are done this way.

 

To often, though, the only theories in the curricula are those thought to be empirical, or close to it. As soon as consensus sways, textbooks completely replace those theories with others. Then what we have is different generations with opposing educations and contrasted conceptions of "scientific truth." When the fact is that science IS a method, a method of evaluating evidence, and we should present it that way to kids. It is not a collection of laws and theories, even though it has a heaping accumulation of such.

 

Why bother teaching *any* math or science, its all "beliefs" right? It all might be overturned tomorrow by the next discovery since none of it is "proven", and if we told you *anything* about why most people seem to believe one of these many theories that we're throwing at you, then you'll think we're biased and you will lose all faith in anything. Just trust your brain."

Right. This is at the other end of the spectrum from theory-focused education, and equally unrealistic. Schools don't have to forsake theories to teach methodology. I think they are hesitant precisely because they assume this. But, when we venture into the middle of this spectrum, teaching both theories and evidence/methodology, the issue becomes not which to teach, but which of the two gets priority.

 

From here, I argue that evidence and methodology should get a supreme favor over any theory, allowing students to not only argue lesser-accepted theories, but also to use this method in some cases to re-validate some empirical theories, not to disprove them of course, but to understand them better. They kind of already do this when a teacher drops a light and heavy object at the same time to demonstrate the Equivalence Principle. We just need to carry this method of teaching to new heights. Perhaps a deeper understanding will be realized by some kid that hasn't yet dawned on scientists.

 

I realize I'm in danger of eliminating ID from consideration of a evidence-based curricula *applause from crowd*, but I don't think so. In fact, I'm gambling on the opposite. I'm just not yet prepared to post much in the forums, yet. I've still got to verify different things, elaborate on others, and streamline the "package." I'm a stickler for presentation. It seems all to often, poor communication does more harm than good.

[paultrr]

This is how science works. It IS equally valid if it is consistent with the observed, reproducible facts as demonstrated via the scientific method.

 

This is the crux of where I tend to see a problem with some of the ID presentations at present. They do not all prove to be consistant even if the general gist as far as an alternative has merit. But I also think they are on the right general track as far as opening honest dialog which was something the older Creation Science Research(young earth/seven day creation) position could not possible achieve.

 

One suggestion,and one can take this for what its worth is perhaps try not focus on the who of the Designer, but more on the plan of design, so to speak. ID's who come out of the Christian background would be hard pressed to convince most scientists of the Designer being the God of the Bible. I,who come from that background, do not see any direct evidence the Designer has to be exactly the God presented in the Bible at all. I think some of the arguments and debates we all have had here bare that out. But I have never said even though I tend towards the agnostic position that I fully reject the idea of a designer. However, I am closer to the older deistic views like some of the founders of this country held if I was to actually shift towards the ID camp.

 

Buffy, often mentions She in place of God. Correct me if I am wrong but the she here would be mother nature. To some the she would also be impersonal in the strict sence. But irrespective if there is some design formed via natural means perhaps then who or whatever designed such would have had enough interest to make the design in the first place. But that's still a far jump from the direct influencing God of the Bible. The only thing in common is design and purpose as far as creation goes. I tend to perfer Buffy's kind of impersonal she, which shares something in common with the older American Indian idea of Father Sky and Mother earth.

[Southtown]

Attacking scientific explanations by finding seeming inconsistencies that seem "obvious" from a lay-person's viewpoint (e.g. arguments found in many current threads regarding the "problems" with Special Relativity), that do not withstand scientific scrutiny

Also these guys are not religious. Other than myself, the only ones to question Einstein are EWright, CraigD, Bobby, xersan, etc. I can't think of one that's religious besides me, and I only question the constant speed of light.

[paultrr]

Also these guys are not religious. Other than myself, the only ones to question Einstein are EWright, CraigD, Bobby, xersan, etc. I can't think of one that's religious besides me, and I only question the constant speed of light.

 

Well, as a researcher who has long been part of the VSL camp in one way or another I can say it is not just the religious who tend to be asking questions there. However, bear in mind most of the religious people I have seen giving reference to that idea tend to be out of the literal seven day camp. They see it as a way of getting around the age of the universe/earth which none of even the debated evidence would lend any support to something akin to a 4000 year old earth if one follows the now defunct Ussher calander. Strict, literal seven day creationism is really a dead subject with tons of strong evidence against. As for the rest, within reason, there is room for debate and examination.

[CraigD]

... Other than myself, the only ones to question Einstein are EWright, CraigD, Bobby, xersan, etc. ...

Not that I’m anything but flattered to be included in this list, but I’d like to clarify how I “question Einstein”.

 

:shrug: My only serious concerns with Relativity stem from its foundations as a theory of Classical Mechanics. I believe that it is fundamentally incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and thus must be superseded by a QM-compatible “theory of everything”. I suspect this will be difficult.

 

;) I have misgivings with the equivalency principle for Special Relativity, which states (in my own words) that for a given inertial frame, the effect of gravitation field is indistinguishable from the effect of acceleration, because it is in a very real sense, untrue: the effect of a gravitation field can be distinguished from that of acceleration by the observation that, in the case of a gravitational field, a object some distance “above” another experiences less force than an equal mass “below” it. In the case of an object undergoing acceleration, the forces experienced by objects of equal mass are equal.

 

I suspect my misgivings are the result of my failure to understand a subtlety of GR. In the near future, I plan to start a thread in the hope that someone can help me resolve this problem.

 

Despite my own acceptance of nearly all of Relativity, I’m interested in the opinions of people who reject all or parts of it, and try to listen to them with an open mind.

 

I question the popular image of Einstein, because, like most popular figures, the actual person agrees poorly with his popular image. Again, this line of questioning belongs, I think, in a separate thread, not in “Science under siege”.

[Qfwfq]

My only serious concerns with Relativity stem from its foundations as a theory of Classical Mechanics. I believe that it is fundamentally incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and thus must be superseded by a QM-compatible “theory of everything”. I suspect this will be difficult.

There is such a thing as relativistic quantum field theory. It is certainly fraught with difficulties but has successfully been used, through the 20th century, to sort out the phenomenology of particle physics, including the standard model. There is certainly a "tension" between QM and the local causality of SR, you might be interested in looking up the Bell inequalities and ongoing research concerning them.

 

the effect of a gravitation field can be distinguished from that of acceleration by the observation that, in the case of a gravitational field, a object some distance “above” another experiences less force than an equal mass “below” it.

(Grooooooooan...) :shrug:

 

That's obvious! As stated in GR, the principle says that, for any point P, a coordinate map can be chosen to be locally inertial. Think of it along the lines of a straight line tangent to a curve. Learn differential geometry before saying GR is faulty.

[Southtown]

Strict, literal seven day creationism is really a dead subject with tons of strong evidence against. As for the rest, within reason, there is room for debate and examination.

Well, I have to ask... can you point me to some sources for this? I have been under the impression that the Hydroplate Theory has a good pile of evidence. Have you read any of it?

[Erasmus00]

Well, I have to ask... can you point me to some sources for this? I have been under the impression that the Hydroplate Theory has a good pile of evidence. Have you read any of it?

 

The hydroplate theory has MAJOR flaws. Consider that the hot, high pressurized water would poach every living thing during the flood event. Also, many of the evidences sighted by Brown (such as Setterfield's study and "flash frozen" mammoths) aren't entirely credible.

-Will

edit: fixed a typo

[Southtown]

Nice catch, Will.

[CraigD]

…

the effect of a gravitation field can be distinguished from that of acceleration by the observation that, in the case of a gravitational field, a object some distance “above” another experiences less force than an equal mass “below” it.

(Grooooooooan...) :hihi:

 

That's obvious! As stated in GR, the principle says that, for any point P, a coordinate map can be chosen to be locally inertial. Think of it along the lines of a straight line tangent to a curve. Learn differential geometry before saying GR is faulty.

Egads! I’ve received the dreaded :lol: emoticon!

 

I am familiar with the literature, and, while not a professional physicist, do have (or had – what you don’t use, you lose!) a reasonably good Math education.

 

The point I was trying to make is not that GR is faulty – which I don’t believe (or truly feel competent to have an opinion on) - but that its equivalency principle is much less intuitive and compelling than SR’s.

 

Back in my teaching days, I was delighted at the number of non-science majors who were able, even with a sub-standard grasp of algebra, to quickly comprehend the fundamentals of SR. While many could also follow the logic of GR, it seemed to lack SR’s capacity for provoking an “ah-ha” of intuitive comprehension. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that the unaccelerated inertial frame of SR’s equivalency principle is more natural and intuitive than the point-localized one required by GR.

 

Alas, I can think of no way to make GR more palatable to the casual science student. Analogies involving marbles, bowling balls, and rubber sheets work fairly well to describe its conclusions, but its derivation from first principles lacks the elegant, geometric simplicity or SR’s.

[Turtle]

___One of my obsessions in years past manifested in reading Ancient Greelk literature, history, & biographies. In my current pursuit of Diogenes, I have disposed of any books & jounrals I owned on the subject, so I refer to my general impressions.

___One of the Ancient Greek dead guys put forward the observation that when things get tough, people turn to gods & spells & prayers for their comfort. It is not different today. Science is under siege because it is dificult & it is only relatively difficult because so many in the US live lives of relative ease.

___Any suitably high technology appears as magic (forget who said that?). Few people these days - let alone students - have the ability to give even a rudimentary explanation of radio for example. Whether you understand it or not doesn't affect its working in the least. Magic. TV, computers, cell phones, magnetic bank cards...magic.

___So magic works without understanding it, god stuff is magic, therefore it must work without understanding it. Let us pray. :hihi:

___Science was under siege in Diogenes time & remains so now. Ignorance is the deadliest sin. :lol:

[Qfwfq]

The point I was trying to make is not that GR is faulty – which I don’t believe (or truly feel competent to have an opinion on) - but that its equivalency principle is much less intuitive and compelling than SR’s.

That wasn't the impression I got from your post.

 

Alas, I can think of no way to make GR more palatable to the casual science student. Analogies involving marbles, bowling balls, and rubber sheets work fairly well to describe its conclusions, but its derivation from first principles lacks the elegant, geometric simplicity or SR’s.

The way to teach GR is with differential geometry, not with marbles and rubber sheets. If you don't find that it has an "elegant, geometric simplicity" like SR then I'm not sure you have as much familiarity as you say. The steps from Galileo-Newton to both SR and GR are essentially geometrical and elegantly simple. Once you understand the non-euclidean geometry and the definition of differentiable manifold.

 

IMHO the troubles of most people in understanding relativity lie in the ways it is usually taught and in historic misconceptions.

[Turtle]

Actually what I'm really asking is what we *do* about it. To a certain extent, some scientists are at fault too: the latest Discover mag has an article on Richard Dawkins in which even he admits that his religion-hostile, "Darwin's Rottweiler" image is counterproductive in convincing folks of the issues described above. The downside of not doing something about it is that we drift into a sort of latter day dark ages where any opinion can be justified as scientific because no one is defending science. In the Intelligent design debate, I hear too many defenders simply say "its wrong, and it doesn't belong in schools" instead of getting straight to the core of the matter that it is not a scientific idea at all, and trying to clarify why. Its kinda like saying "just say no", or "don't worry your little heads about it, just believe us experts". On the public policy side, the pro-business community has been very busy paying researchers to come up with any study at all, biased or not, that proves the points that maximize their profits, with studies that may not falsify data, but certainly skirt the issues of peer review.

 

I'm suggesting that we do need to do something "Lest Darkness Fall" (that's a great book!), and the question is, what do we do?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

So I got one o' them there sieges active right here in River City, namely the ol' Earth's core is hydrogen business again and how the stupid dogmatic scientists think it's iron. While my doggish approach to defending this attack on science is netting little headway, neither are the patient cogent scientific explanations. The question is still, what do we do? :hihi: