Bill comes out against evolution deNyeal

[soundgarden]

The thing about science is that it has to be "peer reviewed".  Any good science is peer-reviewed science, which means that no one can really take your contribution to the field seriously until someone else in the field has taken an unbiased look at the evidence and judgment you've presented to determine if they're logical.

I don't really find that science is opposed to challenging views.  You act as if once scientists have decided something's true, they'll always think that's true and they'll silence everyone who disagrees; this is fundamentally opposed to what science is in principle.

Yes, in principle this is what science is supposed to be, in practice, it is not so clear cut. We are in an age where Science requires people to be highly specialized so we must rely on other experts in other fields for inter-disceplenary approaches. The problem then surfaces that many people are not qualified to challenge the positions of other fields and this can lead to systemic issues.

Many sciences are highly nested within conditions developed from other fields. For example, Cosmology is the queen of the sciences, it deals with the big picture of the Universe and tries to answer the big broad questions. What it ultimately does is put boundary conditions on the other sciences. Something as seemingly mundane as solar evolution theory has a big impact on the chain of scientific disciplines. We don't have a lot of hard data about the past, but current solar model's place the Sun at ~5B years old and the age of the Earth necessarily around ~4B years. It also dictates the evolution of the solar system from its nascent birth to what we see today and describes the conditions and processes the Earth went through over Billions of years. So now, someone who is a Geologist has their initial conditions about the age and birth of the Earth, provided for them from someone who knows nothing about Geology. Geologists now must fit their model's and theories within the framework imposed by Cosmology. Any data or model's that could potentially date earth to 10B years or a few hundred millions years old would be simply dismissed or overlooked because no Geologist would attempt to overturn the decades of research in Cosmology. This then ripples out to Biology in the theories of Abiogenesis and Evolution since it must work within the Geologic framework. The process spiral's out from here. What if tomorrow, Cosmology has a major discovery and the age of the solar system is significantly retooled? What does that mean for Geology and Biology? Tons of research and model's are thrown out the window overnight.

whoa, that is so not true. 

No field lays constraints on another; and to think so shows a glaring misunderstanding of the scientific method.  If this was the case; how has ANY progress every been made since, naturally, more historic experimentation was less precise due to less sophisticated instruments and methods.  IF that was the case, we would still be using Aristotelian physics; that the entire universe is only four elements; earth, wind, water, and fire.

[Orthogonal]

@Theseoafs;@soundgarden

The observation and development of theories for specific processes can certainly occur independent of other scientific disciplines. However, once these processes are applied to large scale model's and conclusions are drawn, they absolutely come up on the boundary conditions set by other disciplines. The point I'm trying to make is, that if an invalid assumption or faulty model were to become accepted in one discipline, the peer-review system and push for consensus can effectively shoe-horn other fields down paths that are not entirely correct. Once the process starts, it is very difficult to back out. It will usually correct itself, but it takes a loooong time.

I'm not even gonna argue this topic, but you can't walk more than 100 feet without massive evidence that Earth is some billion years old. People arguing otherwise are defending their blissful ignorance.

I haven't seen that claim made in this thread so I think its ok to come out for a swim. Come on, the waters great.

[Super Dude]

So just because something doesn't work 100% of the time is sufficient cause to completely discredit it?

[Orthogonal]

Who said anything about discrediting it? Pursuant to the OP, I've only been arguing that it is better that we teach children how to think, not what to think. This has nothing to do with discrediting consensus science, but ensuring people do no blindly accept what they are told.

[theseoafs]

The point I'm trying to make is, that if an invalid assumption or faulty model were to become accepted in one discipline, the peer-review system and push for consensus can effectively shoe-horn other fields down paths that are not entirely correct. Once the process starts, it is very difficult to back out. It will usually correct itself, but it takes a loooong time.

There is no reason to believe, in practice or in principle, that this ever has happened or could happen in the scientific community.  If you have a specific example in mind that would change my mind about that, then you're welcome to share it with me, but at this point your argument just sounds like "science could make wrong decisions, so we can't trust anything anyone says about evolution", which is hardly compelling.

Science depends on conflicting points of view.  The scientific system wouldn't work if what you're describing actually happened.

[jammindude]

I will say that in my experience, people either want to be led by someone higher than themselves, or they do not wish to answer to anyone higher than themselves.

The former are prone to be misled, the latter are prone to be arrogant.    And the latter tend to dominate the field of science. 

But this is in no way intended to be all inclusive.   It's more of an "atmosphere" than an accusation of every individual. 

[Orbert]

I don't think it's that most scientists don't wish to answer to anyone higher than themselves; I think it's more that they are driven to explore and investigate, find out how things work and why, and that requires independent thought and the ability to shrug off what others say.  That's not necessarily arrogance.  Or depending on your definition of arrogance, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

[eric42434224]

I disagree very much with painting entire groups of people with such a broad brush.  But if you want to do that, I would much rather be put in your arrogant camp than in your ignorant camp.

[Super Dude]

I don't think it's that most scientists don't wish to answer to anyone higher than themselves; I think it's more that they are driven to explore and investigate, find out how things work and why, and that requires independent thought and the ability to shrug off what others say.  That's not necessarily arrogance.  Or depending on your definition of arrogance, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Nay, we should strike down these heathens, for they're just a gay bar away from Communism!

[theseoafs]

So what if scientists are arrogant?  I don't care if Richard Dawkins thinks he's better than me.  It might be true.

[jammindude]

I disagree very much with painting entire groups of people with such a broad brush.

But this is in no way intended to be all inclusive.   It's more of an "atmosphere" than an accusation of every individual. 

[eric42434224]

I disagree very much with painting entire groups of people with such a broad brush.

But this is in no way intended to be all inclusive.   It's more of an "atmosphere" than an accusation of every individual. 

Painting a group of people with a broad brush is not necessarily an accusation of every individual or all inclusive.  You can say all you want that your generalization, or "atmosphere" is not generalizing, but that doesnt change the fact that it is.

Example:
I will say that in my experience, that there are two types of Black People...those that choose to portray themselves as "gangstas", and those that choose to conform to mainstream White society.  The former are prone to commit crimes, the latter are prone to be succesful.  But this is in no way intended to be all inclusive.   It's more of an "atmosphere" than an accusation of every individual. 

What you did was break people into 2 categories, just like above, and make judgements on them based on theistic beliefs.  And then say, "Well, I dont mean 100% of people, but..."
You were being generalizing and prejudicial.  Period.
You are entitled to your opinion, absolutely, and I will respect that fact.
But dont say you didn't generalize.

[RuRoRul]

Who said anything about discrediting it? Pursuant to the OP, I've only been arguing that it is better that we teach children how to think, not what to think. This has nothing to do with discrediting consensus science, but ensuring people do no blindly accept what they are told.

Seems best to teach them both how to think, and the conclusions that other people who thought the same way came to in the past. Would you argue that instead of being told about the atom, protons, neutrons and electrons, children are just let loose in a chemistry lab and told to "figure it out for themselves"?

[eric42434224]

Who said anything about discrediting it? Pursuant to the OP, I've only been arguing that it is better that we teach children how to think, not what to think. This has nothing to do with discrediting consensus science, but ensuring people do no blindly accept what they are told.

Seems best to teach them both how to think, and the conclusions that other people who thought the same way came to in the past. Would you argue that instead of being told about the atom, protons, neutrons and electrons, children are just let loose in a chemistry lab and told to "figure it out for themselves"?

Exactly.  Critical Thinking is absolutely a must, and should be a big focus in an education.  While I was in college I always felt that one of the things I needed to learn was "how to learn".  Not just the mechanics of a trade or skill, or lots of information.  But the flexibility to LEARN.
But children (and adults) need to be given the basic building blocks of accepted knowledge before they can be taught critical examination.

[theseoafs]

Seems best to teach them both how to think, and the conclusions that other people who thought the same way came to in the past. Would you argue that instead of being told about the atom, protons, neutrons and electrons, children are just let loose in a chemistry lab and told to "figure it out for themselves"?

^That's the main problem with the argument, I think.  While experiential learning can be very useful (and is indeed under-practiced in high school curricula), students can't be expected to figure out everything about everything by themselves.  At the end of the day, we are still required to fill them in on what we do know.

[soundgarden]

@Theseoafs;@soundgarden

The observation and development of theories for specific processes can certainly occur independent of other scientific disciplines. However, once these processes are applied to large scale model's and conclusions are drawn, they absolutely come up on the boundary conditions set by other disciplines. The point I'm trying to make is, that if an invalid assumption or faulty model were to become accepted in one discipline, the peer-review system and push for consensus can effectively shoe-horn other fields down paths that are not entirely correct. Once the process starts, it is very difficult to back out. It will usually correct itself, but it takes a loooong time.

They are reference points, not boundary conditions.  By your argument, every scientific endeavor must start from scratch; assume NOTHING is true?  Before a kid can study physics, he must first prove, for example, that gravitational acceleration on earth is 9.81 m/s^2?  He must re-invent calculus himself, or can he trust Newton's works?

You are hurting those poor giants and their poor shoulders...


EDIT...

Despite how you (and other fundamentalists feel), scientific method WORKS.  You can argue how faulty you think the method is, but you cannot deny that progress has been made in science and all the technologies we have today are because of this apparent flawed method. 

The one truth though, is that religion's place has been taking an ever increasing back-seat when it comes to explaining the world.

[rumborak]

Religion has the problem that it was never particularly explicit about what it was trying to explain, or how its line of argument goes. The goal (existence of God, Jesus the savior etc.) always took priority over the reason why it should be. Anybody who's read any theological explanation knows very well the handwaving going on. While that was enough up until the Enlightenment, these days people have higher expectations regarding explanations.

[theseoafs]

Despite how you (and other fundamentalists feel), scientific method WORKS.  You can argue how faulty you think the method is, but you cannot deny that progress has been made in science and all the technologies we have today are because of this apparent flawed method. 

This is an important thing to keep in mind, too.  I've met quite a few people who eschew science as a useless, untrustworthy practice before immediately getting out their cell phones (which, today, are more powerful than the earliest supercomputers) to communicate instantly with people on the other side of the Earth. 

It's extremely common among American politicians to distrust science but simultaneously reap its benefits.  As a computer scientist (to be), that confuses me greatly.

[Orthogonal]

There is no reason to believe, in practice or in principle, that this ever has happened or could happen in the scientific community.  If you have a specific example in mind that would change my mind about that, then you're welcome to share it with me, but at this point your argument just sounds like "science could make wrong decisions, so we can't trust anything anyone says about evolution", which is hardly compelling.

Science depends on conflicting points of view.  The scientific system wouldn't work if what you're describing actually happened.

My observation isn't leveled at Evolution specifically, but at the process in general, so Evolution is implicated as part of it. With the exception of the lightly supported Panspermia model for Life on Earth, the theories of Abiogenesis and early Evolution are heavily dependent on the initial conditions provided by Cosmology and Geology. I don't know how it can be argued otherwise. The uniformitarian view of our solar system evolution is mostly based on the circum-stellar disc model. It's not necessary to go into all the details, but if the overall view of the evolution of the solar system changes (there are many holes in the current model), then that directly translates to other theories. (Note: High level aspects of Evolution like micro vs macro evolution probably wouldn't change much, just the specific development and path for the first few billion years on Earth)

If you want another example, take the physics model for the theory of the structure of the Atom. It has changed many times over the last few centuries and even more during the last 120 years. They still haven't fully settled on it, yet different disciplines use different physical models to explain phenomena. Ask an electrical engineer or physicist to explain the flow of electricity or ionization. They will most likely use the orbiting electron "bead" model to explain how an electron moves from one atom to the next or leaves a nucleus to make it ionized. Yet, that physical model has fallen out of favor long ago. Then, ask a Chemist to explain chemical bonding between molecules and they will describe it as a "shell" or p-orbital with wavelike functions. They cannot explain bonding with descrete orbiting "beads". They are two radically different physical interpretations. They can't both be correct. If we ever do settle on an atomic structure that can rationally explain ionization and chemical bonding with the same physical interpretation, that will necessarily cause all other disciplines to re-evaluate theories.

Who said anything about discrediting it? Pursuant to the OP, I've only been arguing that it is better that we teach children how to think, not what to think. This has nothing to do with discrediting consensus science, but ensuring people do no blindly accept what they are told.

Seems best to teach them both how to think, and the conclusions that other people who thought the same way came to in the past. Would you argue that instead of being told about the atom, protons, neutrons and electrons, children are just let loose in a chemistry lab and told to "figure it out for themselves"?

Being told about atoms, protons and neutrons (or any other object) is not a conclusion. You simply point to one, or draw a mockup of one and say what it is. The student can then see what it physically is with their own eyes. You then rationally explain how it interacts with other objects. This is called theory, and students use their critical thinking to gain understanding.

Teaching a conclusion would just be telling a student that a Proton is positive and an Electron is Negative. That doesn't mean anything without explaining how they interact. Similarly, teaching Creationism (as is) would be teaching a conclusion, because it is little more than just saying God did it. That isn't a theory, that is a statement. A theory would have to rationally explain the process.

They are reference points, not boundary conditions.  By your argument, every scientific endeavor must start from scratch; assume NOTHING is true?  Before a kid can study physics, he must first prove, for example, that gravitational acceleration on earth is 9.81 m/s^2?  He must re-invent calculus himself, or can he trust Newton's works?

Mathematics deals exclusively with concepts. It is a tool used to describe dynamic concepts. You establish axioms and then use logic to move from one state to the next. This has nothing to do with teaching conclusions, it is a process.

[Chino]

I had about a half dozen people send me this video last week. I support every word that came out of his mouth.

[Super Dude]

This is probably fairly useless information, but the fall of Rome was precipitated by a general decline in belief in what then passed for science in every social stratum of society, and a general rise in belief in miracles and religion.

[theseoafs]

*snip*

Orth, I think I can make this really simple, because I'm not entirely sure I actually disagree with you on this topic.

It's fine if you think that schools should aim to teach students why true statements are true.  I've already said that I agree with that analysis.

Is it your position that evolution should not be taught in schools?  If so, I have a problem.  Otherwise, we shouldn't be arguing.

[jammindude]

I disagree very much with painting entire groups of people with such a broad brush.

But this is in no way intended to be all inclusive.   It's more of an "atmosphere" than an accusation of every individual. 

Painting a group of people with a broad brush is not necessarily an accusation of every individual or all inclusive.  You can say all you want that your generalization, or "atmosphere" is not generalizing, but that doesnt change the fact that it is.

Example:
I will say that in my experience, that there are two types of Black People...those that choose to portray themselves as "gangstas", and those that choose to conform to mainstream White society.  The former are prone to commit crimes, the latter are prone to be succesful.  But this is in no way intended to be all inclusive.   It's more of an "atmosphere" than an accusation of every individual. 

What you did was break people into 2 categories, just like above, and make judgements on them based on theistic beliefs.  And then say, "Well, I dont mean 100% of people, but..."
You were being generalizing and prejudicial.  Period.
You are entitled to your opinion, absolutely, and I will respect that fact.
But dont say you didn't generalize.

Not the same thing.   You're playing the race card in an attempt to demonize my viewpoint.

It would be more accurate to compare it to a community.   To say that Compton or The Bronx or South Central L.A. have an "atmosphere" of high crime is a generalization...but it's also accurate.  (unless you want to argue that these areas don't have an atmosphere of high crime, in which case we will have to agree to disagree) 

[eric42434224]

I didn't use racism to demonize your viewpoint.  I merely used it to illustrate you are making generalizations about a group of people (blacks, scientists, residents of Compton).
Your comparison to the residents of Compton uses "accuracy" as a justification...so please show me your statistics that illustrate the "arrogance" of those in the scientific community?
Do you really think your characterization of a huge group of people, of whom you may have met only a few, and actually know even less, with no facts to support it, is not a generalization?
Really?

[jammindude]

I didn't use racism to demonize your viewpoint.  I merely used it to illustrate you are making generalizations about a group of people (blacks, scientists, residents of Compton).
Your comparison to the residents of Compton uses "accuracy" as a justification...so please show me your statistics that illustrate the "arrogance" of those in the scientific community?
Do you really think your characterization of a huge group of people, of whom you may have met only a few, and actually know even less, with no facts to support it, is not a generalization?
Really?

Honestly Eric, I'm not going to get into just because I get the feeling I'm pissing you off and I didn't come in here to stir a hornets nest.   I enjoy throwing challenging ideas in among an open minded crowd.   But I believe you've got me pre-judged just because I happen to believe in God and scripture.  (although, I will clarify again...*not* theology's version)   I don't completely pre-judge science...because I actually think they are right in about 95% of their conclusions (I'm generalizing) I just think that they don't look to the correct source of knowledge.     But I feel I'm not really welcome in this thread. 

[snapple]

Question: I'm not very familiar with Nye since his TV show ended. But, when did become an authority on this stuff and it also feels like he's feeding off his internet fandom (aka, people being nostalgic) to spread a message.

[theseoafs]

Question: I'm not very familiar with Nye since his TV show ended. But, when did become an authority on this stuff

Nye's got a BS in mechanical engineering as well as a few honorary Doctorates.  He's also the executive director of the Planetary Society, an organization co-founded by, among others, Carl Sagan, whose goal is to encourage space exploration.

it also feels like he's feeding off his internet fandom (aka, people being nostalgic) to spread a message.

Bill Nye is very active in public speaking today; some of these roles exploit his Science Guy identity, and many of them don't.  Even so, so what?  He's got a platform and a mission, and he's going to use it.

[RuRoRul]

Being told about atoms, protons and neutrons (or any other object) is not a conclusion. You simply point to one, or draw a mockup of one and say what it is. The student can then see what it physically is with their own eyes. You then rationally explain how it interacts with other objects. This is called theory, and students use their critical thinking to gain understanding.

Teaching a conclusion would just be telling a student that a Proton is positive and an Electron is Negative. That doesn't mean anything without explaining how they interact. Similarly, teaching Creationism (as is) would be teaching a conclusion, because it is little more than just saying God did it. That isn't a theory, that is a statement. A theory would have to rationally explain the process.

I challenge you to teach anyone about the existence of atoms, protons or electrons by just pointing to one. To teach them about the existence of protons and electrons is to teach them the conclusions that other scientists arrived at via experimentation in the past, since no one could come to know about their existence without either performing those experiments themselves or being told about them.

I'm not sure exactly what it is you think people should or shouldn't be teaching. Your first post in this thread said not to teach conclusions at all, which I (perhaps wrongly) assumed referred to not teaching people either Young Earth Creationism or evolution (theories to explain life as it exists today). I.e., give them the facts, let them come up with their own theories. Now you seem to be complaining about the opposite - giving people facts without teaching them the theory. I think that your constant use of the world "conclusion" makes it difficult for me to understand exactly what you mean, since it isn't making it very explicit what you think should be taught and what shouldn't. For example:

I don't think we should be teaching conclusions at all, regardless of the situation.

Teaching a conclusion would just be telling a student that a Proton is positive and an Electron is Negative.

If I read this correctly, what you are saying is that you don't think people should ever be taught that a proton is positive? And by being "taught a proton is positive" I don't mean being taught that a proton is positive *and nothing more*. I'm not saying a teacher should walk into a classroom and say "A proton is positive" and then walk out. I'm saying that as part of a lesson about protons/electrons, what they are and how they interact, it should come up that a proton is positive. But since you say the fact that a proton is positive and an electron is negative is "a conclusion" and that conclusions should never be taught, my conclusion (if you will allow me to tell you it) would have to be that you think people should never be taught a proton is positive, regardless of the situation.

Teach people to think critically and about the scientific method, teach people about the theory of evolution and teach people about some of the evidence and reasoning that led to that theory. If you disagree with that sentence and want to say so then could you please point out exactly which part of it you disagree with, so I understand exactly what you mean. If you don't disagree with the sentence at all then we are essentially in agreement, and I wouldn't want to waste any time debating with someone when we both agree.

[Super Dude]

I hereby vote we change the thread title to: "Bill comes out against evolution deNyeal."

[bosk1]

[theseoafs]

For future reference, do note that I will happily change the name of any thread I start, no matter how serious, if you come up with a good pun.

[Super Dude]

I'm not so punny, I'll leave the task up to someone else.

[eric42434224]

Honestly Eric, I'm not going to get into just because I get the feeling I'm pissing you off and I didn't come in here to stir a hornets nest.

You are not pissing me off.

I enjoy throwing challenging ideas in among an open minded crowd.

Generalizing an entire group of people as being arrogant is not throwing in a challenging idea.
 

But I believe you've got me pre-judged just because I happen to believe in God and scripture.  (although, I will clarify again...*not* theology's version)

 

I was commenting on YOU pre-judging a group of people.  I have no judgement on your beliefs.  I do feel your interpretation of scripture however, is very pliable, and gets molded to fit your own beliefs.

I don't completely pre-judge science...because I actually think they are right in about 95% of their conclusions (I'm generalizing) I just think that they don't look to the correct source of knowledge.

What is this "correct source" of the 95% of knowledge that science got right?

But I feel I'm not really welcome in this thread.

That is a product of your own feelings, and not due to anything I have seen in this thread.

[Super Dude]

You went with my pun? But it's so lame....

Someone come up with a better one.

[Orthogonal]

*snip*

Orth, I think I can make this really simple, because I'm not entirely sure I actually disagree with you on this topic.

It's fine if you think that schools should aim to teach students why true statements are true.  I've already said that I agree with that analysis.

Is it your position that evolution should not be taught in schools?  If so, I have a problem.  Otherwise, we shouldn't be arguing.

It's common for people to get their threads crossed when I make statements (if they have a history posting with me). I have no problem with Evolution being taught in schools, just as long as it is taught as a proper theory. The tendency in schools (Public schools usually) is to just teach to standardized tests and students get little more than rote memorization. That's nice for things like trivia and history, but not a good basis for scientific learning. It's usually not until College that kids can get a true education and sometimes that is compromised.