creation museum (2 Viewers)

[flashback]

Maths and science arent the same.

You are completely missing the point of how science works.

Blades is 100% right and you are 100% - and it has nothing to do with philosophy.

Ro is right - there is no certainty. The theory we have now explains the facts we have observed till now. Newtonian gravitation agreed with the fact observable untill (actually the anniversary of the first expirimental confirmation of relativity was yesterday) new phenomona were observed which needed to be explained.

There is nothing which is proved there is simply a cycle of
Observation
Formulate Theory
Expiriment

Nothing is ever set in stone in science .

You seem to think that this is the same as saying every theory is equally valid. That is not the case. A theory that is not suported by expiriment/observation is outright wrong and one which has no predictive value is just not very useful (whether right or wrong)

This lack of dogmsa is exactly what makes science powerful. The fact that everything is up for grabs and the only yardstick is expiriment is what allows progress.

Emm. Ok, so, maths vrs science. Mathematics is part of science. And, essentially all other science is built upon maths.

" You seem to think that this is the same as saying every theory is equally valid."

No. I did not say that, or imply that (I think). People were talking about Philosphy of science. That nothing is proven in science.
I was agreeing, nothing is proven absolutely. Things are proven beyond resonable doubt.
I was trying to set up a sliding scale of things that are "proven". And, I was starting with 1+1 = 2. That is "proven", once you accept a few caveats.

I was saying evolution is up there, right at the top more or less, of things we are pretty sure about. Up there with things like "the sun's energy drives most life on earth". Safe bets.

You can talk about philosphy of science, but, that is a different issue.
You can talk about big bang, but again, that is a different issue.
We are talking about evolution, and in that subject, there is no doubt that it works and happens. At all.

This is the same thing with all of these ID people. Every time you try to pin them, they step left, and ask or answer a different question. Another topic is brought up. They muddy the water. It is a classic argumentative approach.
Ahh but you are not sure.
Correct. We are not sure about anything.
See??? Therefore GOD did it!!!
Wrong.
God explains nothing. Adds nothing. Answers nothing.
Darwin's theory does all of these things. And it does them comprehenisively. There are no holes in the theory. There aren't any.


And.... if I was rough with people, or rude to people, alright, sorry about that. I tend to argue this sort of point reasonably hard.

I am not really a prick. I swear. I am lovely once you get to know me.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

God explains nothing. Adds nothing. Answers nothing.
Darwin's theory does all of these things. And it does them comprehenisively. There are no holes in the theory. There aren't any.

The theory is the best fit we have to the available evidence. Yes. It can be used to predict future behaviour. Yes. It is a very useful theory. It is still not proven. That said, we will probably never have a better theory, but nevertheless it is still a theory and not proven.

By the same yardstick the theory that bodies attract each other with a force inversely proportional to the sguare of the distance between them is also a useful theory. I certainly wouldn't ever make a habbit of standing under a ladder. Its not proven though.

I know this seems kind of semantical and nit picky - especially for the guy standing under the ladder - but there you go.

It is annoying when people deliberately misuse this approach to try and push things that are downright silly, like biblical literalism, into the mix. It annoys me as much as it annoys you - there is a deliberate dishonesty involved in the way they misuse science.

The other thing is, lots of the things you say are scientific theories and - are proven beyond a reasonable doubt - I wouldn't see as theories at all . For example The world is round - of course it is. But there isn't a The Earth is Round scientific theory, any more than there is a My Belly is Round scientific theory. That is a observation rather than a theory as it doesn't have the general nature a theory should have. Neither is it in any way predictive.

You could have a scientific theory that says all planets are round or people who drink lots of Guinness have round bellies. Fine. they would be pretty good theories and correspond to the facts as I have seen them.

Anyway.
You're not being a prick at all - no point in being afraid to put you case.

I'm off out to do an experiment on my Guinness Theory

 

[flashback]

Anyway.
You're not being a prick at all - no point in being afraid to put you case.

I'm off out to do an experiment on my Guinness Theory

Note to self. Must try harder next time.
Ah yeah. Nothing with a robust chat once in a while.

Good luck with your Guinness experiment. I will be doing an IPA experiment in a few hours now myself.

Every time I drink an IPA, I like it. I am betting I will like the next one.

 

[Wilbert]

I don't know much about ert but I know what i like.

Imagine having dinner with Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Screamin Jay Hawkins and the members of Hawkwind.

It'd be pretty AWKward, I'd say.







I'll get my coat.

 

[flashback]

See what happens when you give these banjo picking fucktards and fucking inch....
Today:

"...The Rev Jan Ainsworth, who is responsible for more than 4,600 CofE schools, said intelligent design could form part of discussions in science lessons..."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2093476,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

This is the UK. Not even FundyBushKillemAll-Land.

It is a fucking disgrace.
You cannot treat these shitheads with anything but the total contempt that they deserve. You must go after them, and mercilessly beat the shit out of their idiot notions. It is not ok to teach kids this, any more than it's ok to teach them that they should consider suicide bombing as a method of self expression.
It's damaging, backwards and completely wrong.

 

[Diddles]

See what happens when you give these banjo picking fucktards and fucking inch....
Today:

"...The Rev Jan Ainsworth, who is responsible for more than 4,600 CofE schools, said intelligent design could form part of discussions in science lessons..."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2093476,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

This is the UK. Not even FundyBushKillemAll-Land.

It is a fucking disgrace.
You cannot treat these shitheads with anything but the total contempt that they deserve. You must go after them, and mercilessly beat the shit out of their idiot notions. It is not ok to teach kids this, any more than it's ok to teach them that they should consider suicide bombing as a method of self expression.
It's damaging, backwards and completely wrong.

Relativisim prevails unfortunately.

Every viewpoint is valid and no facts exist apparently.

Except the fact that every viewpoint is valid of course, no matter how ridiculous or crazy it is.

This thread is freaking me out on so many levels.

 

[Lili Marlene]

If intelligent design is absolute rubbish then discussing it in science class should expose it as absolute rubbish pretty quickly no? Instead of censoring it you allow its weak arguments to be shown to have no foundation?

 

[ITalkShite]

If intelligent design is absolute rubbish then discussing it in science class should expose it as absolute rubbish pretty quickly no? Instead of censoring it you allow its weak arguments to be shown to have no foundation?

By that logic you should allow all and any theories to have an equal amount of time in science classes, because their ridiculousness will expose them - flat earth theory, celestial teapot theory, tooth fairy theory, earth-water-fire-and-ice theory, and so on.

That might be legitimate in a situation where there was infinite time for teaching all things to all people. Unfortunately, the amount of time available to teach students anything is a limited commodity. So there's quite a convincing moral case for not doing that.

That said, there is a case for teaching about creationism and 'intelligent design' - they would fit quite well into a sociology class on the history of human origin mythologies. Or alternatively, in a science class on evolutionary psychology, using creationism as an example of the human capacity for self deception as a trait of our adaptive history as a species.

 

[Lili Marlene]

By that logic you should allow all and any theories to have an equal amount of time in science classes, because their ridiculousness will expose them - flat earth theory, celestial teapot theory, tooth fairy theory, earth-water-fire-and-ice theory, and so on.

but none of those theories have huge amounts of people pushing for them to be taught in school.

Anyway I didn't specify how much time would be spent discussing it but if it has no scientific grounding it shouldn't take long

 

[ITalkShite]

but none of those theories have huge amounts of people pushing for them to be taught in school.

Anyway I didn't specify how much time would be spent discussing it but if it has no scientific grounding it shouldn't take long

But that avoids the basic issue - if it has no scientific grounding, where is the logic for teaching it? Why should science techers have to teach pseudoscience just to keep political pressure groups happy? It implies that ultimately, all education should be organised according to which lobby group shouts loudest.

 

[Ciansy]

I have no problem at all with the ideas of Creationism, Intelligent Design or anything else, I just really wish people who support them would stop pretending that they can be succesfully argued for within the constraints of science and scientific method. They just can't, because there're always one or more intrinsic problems that prevent them from being recognised as a scientific theory.

I find it strange that Creationists and Christian fundamentalists simultaneously claim that the entire scientific community is evil and biased and also try to dress up their ideas in a semblance of scientific method. They're obviously not going to accept all the constraints of science, as this would cripple their conjectures, so I really wish they'd stop acting like scientific method is a pick'n'mix.

I'm not saying that scientific method as used by generations of rational-minded women and men is the only method of working things out, but it's the one I choose and I think that Creationists et al should at least have enough respect to work out, and stick to, their own method rather than perverting and twisting this very useful existing method.

Also, there are hundreds and hundreds of pages on this subject over on boards.ie. We don't really want to be like them, do we?

 

[Lili Marlene]

But that avoids the basic issue - if it has no scientific grounding, where is the logic for teaching it? Why should science techers have to teach pseudoscience just to keep political pressure groups happy? It implies that ultimately, all education should be organised according to which lobby group shouts loudest.

Well there's teaching it and there is discussing it. If it really is absolute rubbish at least the students will be equipped to deal with anyone who tries to say creationism is a science outside of school. I guess we're getting into ideas of what should be taught in schools and how they should be taught.

 

[ITalkShite]

Well there's teaching it and there is discussing it.

There's not really any difference, unless we're going to split hairs. There are plenty of methods of educational instruction which involve discussion, and vice versa. It started with Socrates and it's not going to change any time soon.

If it really is absolute rubbish at least the students will be equipped to deal with anyone who tries to say creationism is a science outside of school.

But again, if it's rubbish, why should it be taught as part of a science class in the first place?

I guess we're getting into ideas of what should be taught in schools and how they should be taught.

I think we've pretty much been talking about that all along.

 

[Lili Marlene]

There's not really any difference, unless we're going to split hairs. There are plenty of methods of educational instruction which involve discussion, and vice versa. It started with Socrates and it's not going to change any time soon.

I would say there is a big difference between learning stuff off by rota and discussing ideas. and there is a lot of learning stuff off by rota in the irish system

But again, if it's rubbish, why should it be taught as part of a science class in the first place?

because not everyone believes it's rubbish or we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

 

[ITalkShite]

I would say there is a big difference between learning stuff off by rota and discussing ideas.

I think this might be the hair-splitting I was talking about: yes, absolutely, there is a difference. However, both of these methods are forms of teaching, so as far as I can see, there's no point having a roundabout discussion about what would constitute the best method of teaching, discussing, learning, hearing about, thinking about or otherwise using 'Intelligent design' in schools. The basic situation is that, as science, it shouldn't be there at all.

because not everyone believes it's rubbish or we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

There are a lot of rubbish things that not everybody thinks is rubbish; it doesn't automatically make them true, or even worthy of discussion.

 

[Lili Marlene]

The basic situation is that, as science, it shouldn't be there at all.

and the harm in teaching why this is so is what?
If there is so much uproar about this situation then surely there must be some benefit in not ignoring it?

There are a lot of rubbish things that not everybody thinks is rubbish

what? Do you have some kind of measure on this?

 

[ITalkShite]

and the harm in teaching why this is so is what?
If there is so much uproar about this situation then surely there must be some benefit in not ignoring it?

Absolutely - that's why I was suggesting that it should be taught about, just not as science. For example, it could be part of a Sociology course with classes about human origin myths, or part of a Politics course with classes about contemporary political propaganda, or part of a Psychology course with classes about the psychology of belief reinforcement. There's lots of room to teach about it as a social phenomenon, certainly. But it's not science, so it shouldn't be taught as science.

what? Do you have some kind of measure on this?

I would have thought that it was a truism, but if you disagree, that's grand.

 

[Ciansy]

But it's not science, so it shouldn't be taught as science.

Yup. And in science, something that doesn't stand up to testing is irrelevant and unworthy of discussion regardless of how many poeple believe it.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Absolutely - that's why I was suggesting that it should be taught about, just not as science. For example, it could be part of a Sociology course with classes about human origin myths, or part of a Politics course with classes about contemporary political propaganda, or part of a Psychology course with classes about the psychology of belief reinforcement. There's lots of room to teach about it as a social phenomenon, certainly. But it's not science, so it shouldn't be taught as science.

ok. but do all school have politics,sociology and psychology classes? Mine certainly had none of them. But they had science.

What i'm saying is that this doesn't seem to be going away no matter how much people shout 'it's bollocks, don't listen to them'. And if Intelligent Design wants to present itself as a science why not put a chapter in the Science books treating it as so. Show how it presents itself as a science, show why it is criticised and how it defends itself etc.
At least people can make an informed decision and see WHY it's a load of bollocks rather than just being told 'it's bollocks'.

What i'd be afraid of is that if this movement caught enough momentum people could end up having the choice between taking 'Science' or 'Creationist Science' (or whatever they're calling themselves at the time) in schools.

I would have thought that it was a truism, but if you disagree, that's grand.

yeah I disagree but we'll save that for another time!ninjaaaa

 

[ITalkShite]

ok. but do all school have politics,sociology and psychology classes? Mine certainly had none of them. But they had science.

Fair enough, I was more thinking of college-type classes. But the basic point stands - teach it, by all means, just not as science. (My school had a class in something like 'Society and Culture' once a week; I think as some kind of misguided attempt to make us into good citizens. Could slot in nicely there.)

What i'm saying is that this doesn't seem to be going away no matter how much people shout 'it's bollocks, don't listen to them'. And if Intelligent Design wants to present itself as a science why not put a chapter in the Science books treating it as so. Show how it presents itself as a science, show why it is criticised and how it defends itself etc.
At least people can make an informed decision and see WHY it's a load of bollocks rather than just being told 'it's bollocks'.

Well, because of the basic point - it's not science. By this logic, there could also be chapters on Racial Eugenics, Phrenology, Lysenkoism, ESP, Santa Claus, and more.

'Intelligent design' is the effort of evangelical christian extremists to batter their way onto science courses to advance their political agenda. If people want to make informed decisions, then certainly, they should know more about 'Intelligent design', but it's not science, so it shouldn't be in science books.

What i'd be afraid of is that if this movement caught enough momentum people could end up having the choice between learning 'Science' and 'Creationist Science' (or whatever they're calling themselves at the time) in schools.

Well, that's what you'd be opening the door to, certainly...

yeah I disagree but we'll save that for another time!ninjaaaa

Heh, grand so