http://gamingtrend.com
October 22, 2014, 12:51:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is our children learning?  (Read 2801 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3632


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 13, 2013, 11:06:56 AM »

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM

Quote from: th'FOOL on September 12, 2013, 05:40:11 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

Also, I believe while our theory of evolution is correct, there's a reason it's called a theory. It can't be proven conclusively, so to call it a "fact" lumped in with the age of the Earth is incorrect.

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis, as a theory is a 'proven' hypothesis, that, in other words, has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Bad science happens too - and not challenging science is about as bad as it gets*. Scientific process demands challenge - just because it has not been dis-proven does not mean it is *fact*. The problem with what we call scientific "fact" is that often what was accepted gets disproven and thrown out - and in doing so we discredit this "science" thing, instead of teaching the scientific method.


No, disproving an accepted idea *is* the scientific method.  Science is disproven by science.  Faith-based beliefs, such as creationism, might provide an excuse to ignore scientific facts, but you can no more disprove a scientific observation by holding up a Bible than cure the Black Plague through prayer.  They tried.


Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM

Creationism very MUCH has a place in science - it is a counterpoint. Can we disprove the world is more than 6000 years old?


Yes.

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM

What methods are there?


Geology and geophysics, astrophysics, paleontology, cosmology, chemistry, and biology.  These sciences each specialize in examining different aspects of the physical world, from sediment deposits in a lake bed to the decay rate of atomic carbon to the dispersal of cosmic radiation within our arm of the galaxy.  Literally, no matter where you look, the evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction.

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM


How reliable are they?


Extremely.  Dendochronology alone could not conclude that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.  Nor could radiocarbon dating, radiometric dating, paleomagnetic dating, tectonic drift, or stellar metrics...but when all of these methods consistently point to a singular conclusion, the odds of all of them being off by billions and billions of years is infinitesimal.

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM

Regardless of whether creationism is based on faith or not, it can be used to hold up against evolution, and even open discussions as to other possibilities. Creationism "taught" is different than "examined". There is nothing wrong with the examination.

Anything based on faith alone as the method of teaching doesn't belong in schools IMO.


I don't understand what you believe creationism is.  This is not a debate between two separate but equal interpretations of data.  There is the scientific side, where all of the data is; and the creationist side, where they have the Bible.  That's it.

Creationists do not formulate hypotheses, conduct experiments, and then videotape God saying, "Fossils.  Yeah, that was me.  I can't believe they actually fell for that!"  Creationists look for ways to discredit scientific findings, such as examining ways in which evidence could be falsified if people 5,000 years ago really wanted to, and then concluding that any theoretical gap in scientific understanding is proof that God Did It.


Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM

*Note - I'm just speaking to that point and not to the concept of creationism which requires far more blind-will to accept than that of thousands of generations of genetic change to evolve from monkeys. It may be that evolution is plausible (aka the likely answer) - but that doesn't rule out other possibilities - ones where we simply don't have enough knowledge to even know where to begin looking.


But that's why science keeps looking.  Evolutionary theory didn't stop with The Origin of Species -- scientists took that concept, hypothesized about its implications, and have spent the last 150 years looking for evidence.  Not just evidence to prove Darwin correct, mind you -- *any* evidence to show whether or not the premise of evolution is scientifically sound.

What new evidence have creationists produced in the last 2,000 years?  What evidence do they have that God created every form of life, from a badger to the ebola virus, in a 24-hour period, and then falsified all the evidence to the contrary?  Is there some "Made in Bethlehem" stamp on the inside of dinosaur skulls that the secular media has been keeping hush hush?

Creationism is the antithesis of science.  Its only role in a science class is to demonstrate how exhaustively it can be disproven through curiosity, experimentation, and observation.  To hold it up as a rational counterpoint to scientific findings, though...that isn't even philosophy; it's straight out proselytizing.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1339


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 13, 2013, 12:44:15 PM »

Science starts with evidence and devises a theory to explain it. Creationism/intelligent design starts with a conclusion and seeks out evidence to support it.

The great thing about the theory of evolution is that it's true whether someone acknowledges it or not. There is no scientifically valid alternative to teach. The alternatives are not science.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 01:07:20 PM by Captain Caveman » Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9254


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 13, 2013, 12:57:20 PM »

Quote from: MonkeyFinger on September 13, 2013, 01:26:53 AM

Quote from: hepcat on September 12, 2013, 01:25:46 PM

I'm guessing the thread title is sarcastically incorrect?

Not sure I really want to step into this thread but wanted to clarify the subject. It's from a George W. Bush speech on education and the full quote is, "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?".

He later came back to this at a Correspondents dinner and said:

Quote from: Urban Dictionary
"Then there is my most famous statement: "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning." Let us analyze that sentence for a moment. If you're a stickler, you probably think the singular verb "is" should have been the plural "are." But if you read it closely, you'll see I'm using the intransitive plural subjunctive tense. So the word "is" are correct. (Laughter and applause.)

 icon_wink

 icon_lol  I had completely forgotten about that.  
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 13, 2013, 01:28:18 PM »

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM

Creationism very MUCH has a place in science - it is a counterpoint. Can we disprove the world is more than 6000 years old? What methods are there? How reliable are they? Regardless of whether creationism is based on faith or not, it can be used to hold up against evolution, and even open discussions as to other possibilities. Creationism "taught" is different than "examined". There is nothing wrong with the examination.

Creationism may be stupid, but to bring it up in science classes just to ridicule it would be mean spirited, petty and unnecessary. There are less emotionally-fraught, lawsuit-baiting ways to demonstrate how science disproves nonsense.
Logged

Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 13, 2013, 02:35:35 PM »

IF that was a dedicated point, then yes.

My problem is that science isn't being taught - but scientific realms (biology, chemistry, physics). The understanding of what science really is (the process, the challenges, and *what* the results really mean) needs to have it's own class. In that class, applying the thinking of science to all / any things, including creationism, beliefs, etc, and handled with curriculum that works not to debase peoples faiths, but instead understand the processes of how science builds upon itself (and fails more than it succeeds) is key.

One cannot disprove a faith-based idea - there are no grounds to it. Science's job is to show method and understand relationships and dependencies, causality and all of that. People have "faith" in science, and if one were to ask Science how it felt about it, it'd want no part of that. 
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 13, 2013, 02:52:43 PM »

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 02:35:35 PM

My problem is that science isn't being taught - but scientific realms (biology, chemistry, physics). The understanding of what science really is (the process, the challenges, and *what* the results really mean) needs to have it's own class.

When I was in school, that's what science classes covered through elementary school. In Middle School and High School we branched off into biology, chemistry, etc.

Quote
In that class, applying the thinking of science to all / any things, including creationism, beliefs, etc, and handled with curriculum that works not to debase peoples faiths, but instead understand the processes of how science builds upon itself (and fails more than it succeeds) is key.

Surely something like geocentrism would be preferable to creationism. Just for the sake of a teacher, you're inviting an invasion of busybody, angry fundamentalist parents if you start putting portions of the Bible to task scientifically.
Logged

naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4676



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: September 13, 2013, 05:16:58 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 13, 2013, 02:03:45 AM

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 11:23:36 PM



You can teach a class that offers different perspectives.  It doesn't mean you are preaching to people or trying to convert or whatever else you're afraid of.  You can easily talk about both topics in a matter where it's not confrontational or misleading.

To tell people that the world is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is "correct" is preaching, no matter where you do it. To tell kids that creationism can be considered scientifically is by its very nature misleading.

Creation beliefs of all religions is a great topic for a comparative religion class. And I'd be all in favor of requiring students to take a class that teaches them the basic precepts of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. But it's not science, can never be science, and has no place in a science class.

Again you're missing the point, or not understanding.  I'm not saying it needs to be taught in a right or wrong perspective.  I'm saying you can teach a topic that shows different viewpoints.  

And yes prior to your response as I was driving home I was thinking about this, and I agree what I'm suggesting would probably be a better fit for a philosophy class.  With that said, a science teacher can equally discuss both  viewpoints without preaching.

**fixed quoting issue**
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 05:25:00 PM by naednek » Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5105



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: September 13, 2013, 05:26:46 PM »

It's amusing how Christians act like there are two versions to be compared: creationism based on the bible and science based evolution. When in fact there are hundreds of origin myths. I don't want a science teacher wasting time equally discussing all of these viewpoints. Save that for a comparative religions class.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4676



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: September 13, 2013, 05:43:22 PM »

Either way, I understand your point about keeping science class about science and I respect it.   I don't think a science class needs to spend a long time talking about other viewpoints. I don't necessary believe that religion needs to be part of school other than learning about what each believe in and how it affects the world or how it's been part of a history of a culture/nation type setting.  (meaning I don't think we need to be making people memorize bible verses or taught the Bible and such)   I don't think talking about religion is harmful or disruptive when comparing viewpoints.   I think there's a way to offer both view points not just in science but anywhere without making it a Sunday school setting.  I'd assume most people would agree to be open minded and respectful towards different issues whether its regarding religion or whatever else.  And that's what I was trying to get at. 

I clearly remember taking a science class in high school (Junior Year) and we talked about all sorts of topics and different viewpoints.  And the science aspects were the main discussions/teachings.

Anyways just to conclude since I won't be adding more, because I believe what I said was clear, and it's not going to change anyone's mind, is I think you can discuss other viewpoints in a science class or any class and not make it disruptive or preachy.   
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3632


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: September 13, 2013, 05:53:24 PM »

Quote from: naednek on September 13, 2013, 05:16:58 PM

Again you're missing the point, or not understanding.  I'm not saying it needs to be taught in a right or wrong perspective.  I'm saying you can teach a topic that shows different viewpoints. 

And yes prior to your response as I was driving home I was thinking about this, and I agree what I'm suggesting would probably be a better fit for a philosophy class.  With that said, a science teacher can equally discuss both  viewpoints without preaching.


How?  "Science does not exist" is not a valid scientific precept for a scientist to teach in science class.  Again, creationism does not offer an alternative explanation for the available data -- it dismisses the data out of hand and says, "God works in mysterious ways."

Let me try to illustrate how the creationist argument functions.

"I THINK PURGE IS A WOMAN."

"No he isn't.  Look, his photo is right there."

"SHE COULD PUT UP ANY PICTURE SHE WANTED."

"You're right...Okay, I just talked to a lot of people who know him, including ex-girlfriends, and he's a guy.  A father, in fact."

"THEY COULD ALL BE LYING."

"That seems pretty unlikely, but okay...I just did a physical examination.  From beard to balls, he's a dude."

"PFFFFFT!  SURGERY AND HORMONE THERAPY!"

"You know there would be all sorts of telltale signs...never mind.  I'll just have this professional surgeon look things over...."

"HE'S IN ON IT TOO."

"Fine!  How about this DNA sequencing?  One X chromosome, one Y."

"THAT COULD BE A TAINTED SAMPLE!  IT COULD BE THAT IVORY TOWER DOCTOR'S DNA FOR ALL I KNOW!"

"Then exploratory surgery it is.  Just count backwards from ten, Purge.  Let's see here: no uterus or ovaries, bone density and proportions are in line with an average male, and here's his prostate.  Hmmm....remind me to tell hi-"

"YOU AREN'T RESPECTING THE TENETS OF MY FAITH!  I DECLARE THESE FINDINGS CONTROVERSIAL, IN THAT I REFUSE TO HAVE MY FAITH DENIGRATED IN THIS WAY!  WHY ARE YOU SO INTOLERANT OF OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE?!"

-Autistic Angel
Logged
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4676



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: September 13, 2013, 06:09:41 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 13, 2013, 05:53:24 PM

Quote from: naednek on September 13, 2013, 05:16:58 PM

Again you're missing the point, or not understanding.  I'm not saying it needs to be taught in a right or wrong perspective.  I'm saying you can teach a topic that shows different viewpoints. 

And yes prior to your response as I was driving home I was thinking about this, and I agree what I'm suggesting would probably be a better fit for a philosophy class.  With that said, a science teacher can equally discuss both  viewpoints without preaching.


How?  "Science does not exist" is not a valid scientific precept for a scientist to teach in science class.  Again, creationism does not offer an alternative explanation for the available data -- it dismisses the data out of hand and says, "God works in mysterious ways."

<snip>

-Autistic Angel


Maybe if I put it in blue letters you'll get it.  Because I dont' see how this is a hard thing to understand.

First, I understand your argument about science is based on facts and creationism is based on faith....  I get it I really do.  Now here's where you should pay attention, because this is now the third time...

I'm not saying it needs to be taught or presented or discussed in depth in a science class that creationism is right.  I'm not even saying it needs to be taught in science period.  What I am saying and it's probably drifting away from the OP is that it could be taught as a alternate viewpoint if it was required to be taught in a science setting.  "Hey class, this is what science believes and why, now here are some other beliefs/ideas that other people have and why."   From there depending on the teacher and more than likely they probably don't believe in creationism, you can explain/teach why they believe science is right.  But at least your teaching students different view points not for the sake of right and wrong, but because you know what, people in the world have different views on the same topic, whether you deem it right or wrong and it's always good to understand people's viewpoints.   

Nowhere in that framework is anyone telling someone that creationism is right or any other idea.  So lets remove the defensive attitude here and try to think openly.  I mean don't you want Christians to do the same? 
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 13, 2013, 06:47:04 PM »

Quote from: naednek on September 13, 2013, 05:16:58 PM

Again you're missing the point, or not understanding.  I'm not saying it needs to be taught in a right or wrong perspective.  I'm saying you can teach a topic that shows different viewpoints.  

In a science class there aren't different viewpoints to show. In science, there is only evolution. Nothing else has any business in science classrooms.
Logged

Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 689



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: September 13, 2013, 08:09:31 PM »

Quote from: naednek on September 13, 2013, 06:09:41 PM

"Hey class, this is what science believes and why, now here are some other beliefs/ideas that other people have and why."   From there depending on the teacher and more than likely they probably don't believe in creationism, you can explain/teach why they believe science is right.  But at least your teaching students different view points not for the sake of right and wrong, but because you know what, people in the world have different views on the same topic, whether you deem it right or wrong and it's always good to understand people's viewpoints.   [/color]


That isn't the point of a science class. And saying "This is what science believes" makes it sound like the other viewpoints may be valid.


Ale
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 13, 2013, 08:17:51 PM »

Quote from: Alefroth on September 13, 2013, 08:09:31 PM

Quote from: naednek on September 13, 2013, 06:09:41 PM

"Hey class, this is what science believes and why, now here are some other beliefs/ideas that other people have and why."   From there depending on the teacher and more than likely they probably don't believe in creationism, you can explain/teach why they believe science is right.  But at least your teaching students different view points not for the sake of right and wrong, but because you know what, people in the world have different views on the same topic, whether you deem it right or wrong and it's always good to understand people's viewpoints.   [/color]


That isn't the point of a science class. And saying "This is what science believes" makes it sound like the other viewpoints may be valid.


Ale

+1

What naednek is describing might be a class, but it's not a science class.
Logged

RuperT
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 204


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: September 13, 2013, 08:23:26 PM »

Raise your hand if you were "taught" heliocentrism in science class...
Logged

Live: MooseFoe
PSN: Rupyrt
Mormech
Welcome to Gaming Trend

Offline Offline

Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: September 13, 2013, 09:41:47 PM »

Quote from: Alefroth on September 13, 2013, 08:09:31 PM



That isn't the point of a science class. And saying "This is what science believes" makes it sound like the other viewpoints may be valid.


Yep.  There is no room in a science class for 'alternate viewpoints' unless scientific evidence at least suggests they are possible, which has not occurred in the case of creationism.  Given how poorly American students are performing in science classes today, the last thing we need is for students to be spending time discussing non-scientific viewpoints for the sake of diversity instead of instilling more knowledge about actual scientific principles. 

There hasn't been any scientific evidence found to back any theory aside from evolution, despite what many young earth creationists might claim to the contrary with their citing of discredited scientists and studies.  So, there's no reason to even mention young-earth creationism in a scientific classroom unless the intent is to show how inherently flawed/ridiculous that idea is.  There's no science behind it, period.  Hence the resistance to the idea of discussing it in school at all.  It'd be a complete waste of time better served for other things.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 10:20:36 PM by Mormech » Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3402



View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2013, 09:55:56 PM »

Quote from: Razgon on September 13, 2013, 06:59:51 AM

Edit: I will have to check if creationism is taught as well.

It's my understanding that creationism has no currency outside of the US (except as a fringe belief at most, certainly not as a "science"), so I'd be interested to know if it has a toehold in Denmark.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2013, 09:56:09 PM »

Problem is, creationism is so at odds with what is in place that I can see where an earlier point about it not being ridiculed is going to be very,very hard.

Teaching Creationism IN school is OK as long as every other major religion gets the same "face time".

And I do mean taught, as in understanding its basis, its main tenets, and the values in those cultures.

Not: THIS IS GOD, WORSHIP HIM IN THIS WAY NOW.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
RuperT
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 204


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: September 13, 2013, 10:20:35 PM »

Quote from: Mormech on September 13, 2013, 09:41:47 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on September 13, 2013, 08:09:31 PM



That isn't the point of a science class. And saying "This is what science believes" makes it sound like the other viewpoints may be valid.


Yep.  There is no room in a science class for 'alternate viewpoints'.  Given how poorly American students are performing in science classes today, the last thing we need to do is spend time on non-scientific viewpoints for the sake of diversity instead of instilling more knowledge about actual scientific principles. 
Exactly.  Astrophysics are fundamental.
Logged

Live: MooseFoe
PSN: Rupyrt
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3632


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2013, 10:30:16 PM »

Quote from: naednek on September 13, 2013, 06:09:41 PM

I'm not saying it needs to be taught or presented or discussed in depth in a science class that creationism is right.  I'm not even saying it needs to be taught in science period.  What I am saying and it's probably drifting away from the OP is that it could be taught as a alternate viewpoint if it was required to be taught in a science setting.  "Hey class, this is what science believes and why, now here are some other beliefs/ideas that other people have and why."   From there depending on the teacher and more than likely they probably don't believe in creationism, you can explain/teach why they believe science is right.


I understand your idea.  A class dedicated to exploring different scientific beliefs along with different creationist beliefs, without any value judgements over which are right and which are wrong.

The point I'm making is that there are two major problems with this idea: science is not a framework of beliefs, and it is demonstrably right.

If you want to have a class comparing and contrasting various creation myths, that's fine.  There is just as much evidence to suggest that the world exists on the back of an astral turtle as it was wished into existence by God over the course of a few days, so a teacher would be free to discuss the factual claims of each story without fear of contradiction about which one is correct.

The moment you introduce science into that discussion, however, it is no longer possible to avoid value judgements because the lessons will all go like this:

- Science has determined the Earth's age by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 isotopes to stable carbon-12 in hundreds of thousands of samples from around the world, and then calculating the samples' age based on the constant rate at which carbon-14 breaks down into nitrogen.  Creationists discount this evidence because the results conflict with the Bible.

- Science has determined the Earth's age by tracing major genetic splits between different population groups back to common geographic locations and then calculating the span of time between these changes based on the fairly constant rate at which human DNA mutates from one generation to the next.  Creationists discount this evidence because the results conflict with the Bible.

- Science has determined the Earth's age by examining the magnetic banding of minerals throughout the geologic column in samples taken from all over the world.  The results are then compared against the known rate at which the planet's magnetic field reverses polarity -- approximately once every 250,000 years -- to calculate the age of the rocks.  Creationists discount this evidence because the results conflict with the Bible.

- Science has determined the Earth's age by comparing the average rate at which the sun fuses hydrogen into helium against its current mass and fuel supply, and then working backwards to pinpoint the age of our solar system.  Creationists discount this evidence because the results conflict with the Bible.

These are not scientific opinions -- they are observable, testable, proven facts governed by the laws of physics and chemistry.  You cannot teach that creationism represents an alternative viewpoint to the natural laws of the universe, not in a science class, a philosophy class, a comparative religious class or any place else, because they are the laws of the universe.


Quote from: naednek on September 13, 2013, 06:09:41 PM

Nowhere in that framework is anyone telling someone that creationism is right or any other idea.  So lets remove the defensive attitude here and try to think openly.  I mean don't you want Christians to do the same?  


No, I want Christians to preach their gospel in their churches and cathedrals, in their homes and at their summer camps, on radio and television and through their internet sites all day long, on the condition that they stop trying to force their doctrine onto others by rule of law.  They're free to exercise their freedom of worship just like everyone else, open-minded or not, but they're not allowed to present the Book of Genesis as a reasoned counterpoint to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 689



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: September 13, 2013, 10:47:24 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 13, 2013, 08:17:51 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on September 13, 2013, 08:09:31 PM

Quote from: naednek on September 13, 2013, 06:09:41 PM

"Hey class, this is what science believes and why, now here are some other beliefs/ideas that other people have and why."   From there depending on the teacher and more than likely they probably don't believe in creationism, you can explain/teach why they believe science is right.  But at least your teaching students different view points not for the sake of right and wrong, but because you know what, people in the world have different views on the same topic, whether you deem it right or wrong and it's always good to understand people's viewpoints.   [/color]


That isn't the point of a science class. And saying "This is what science believes" makes it sound like the other viewpoints may be valid.


Ale

+1

What naednek is describing might be a class, but it's not a science class.

It'd be perfect for a cultural anthropology class studying various creation myths. In fact, I think I had a class just like that.

Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2013, 04:27:50 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 13, 2013, 10:30:16 PM

The point I'm making is that there are two major problems with this idea: science is not a framework of beliefs, and it is demonstrably right.

Your first statement is correct in it's incorrectness - science cannot disprove what it cannot know, and as such ideas are formed around the data. There is interpretation, and both bias and belief leak into what we term "science".

Your second statement (IMO) is also half-right - it *can* be demonstrably right- but more often than not it brings forward theory, which has supporting evidence which may-or-may-not actually apply - the only doctrine which comes much closer to the second point is mathematics.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8299


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2013, 07:16:03 AM »

Quote from: Ironrod on September 13, 2013, 09:55:56 PM

Quote from: Razgon on September 13, 2013, 06:59:51 AM

Edit: I will have to check if creationism is taught as well.

It's my understanding that creationism has no currency outside of the US (except as a fringe belief at most, certainly not as a "science"), so I'd be interested to know if it has a toehold in Denmark.

And you are right - My GF, who is a teacher , hadn't even heard about it, and she teaches religion classes.
Logged

A new one
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3632


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2013, 03:01:01 PM »

Quote from: Purge on September 14, 2013, 04:27:50 AM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 13, 2013, 10:30:16 PM

The point I'm making is that there are two major problems with this idea: science is not a framework of beliefs, and it is demonstrably right.

Your first statement is correct in it's incorrectness - science cannot disprove what it cannot know, and as such ideas are formed around the data. There is interpretation, and both bias and belief leak into what we term "science".


Potassium-40 decays into stable Calcium and Argon with a half-life of about 1.25 billion years.  Since Argon is largely nonreactive and not otherwise an inherent element in igneous rock, scientists are able to determine the age of rock samples from deep inside the Earth by comparing the amount of Argon to the remaining amount of Potassium-40.

K-Ar dating has been largely superseded by Ar-Ar dating now, but as the older test, it's had more time to be vetted by the global community...particularly by those who believe that the elements did not even exist as recently as 6,000 years ago.

What is the specific nature of the bias you believe may have corrupted the results of this method, so that every laboratory in the world is able to produce consistent results over thousands of separate tests, and are all billions of years off the mark?

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 412


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2013, 03:50:45 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on September 13, 2013, 09:55:56 PM

Quote from: Razgon on September 13, 2013, 06:59:51 AM

Edit: I will have to check if creationism is taught as well.

It's my understanding that creationism has no currency outside of the US (except as a fringe belief at most, certainly not as a "science"), so I'd be interested to know if it has a toehold in Denmark.

Islam while not taking a somewhat different view isn't scientific in any way. It seems to have a little traction outside the U.S. as well.
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2013, 04:01:28 PM »

Quote from: Rip on September 14, 2013, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on September 13, 2013, 09:55:56 PM

Quote from: Razgon on September 13, 2013, 06:59:51 AM

Edit: I will have to check if creationism is taught as well.

It's my understanding that creationism has no currency outside of the US (except as a fringe belief at most, certainly not as a "science"), so I'd be interested to know if it has a toehold in Denmark.

Islam while not taking a somewhat different view isn't scientific in any way. It seems to have a little traction outside the U.S. as well.

Modern-day fundamentalist Islam does have a pretty bad track record as it goes with science. Which is ironic, considering that the Islamic world is what drove science forward during the European dark age. And it is Islamic mathematics, particularly in the form of algebra, that underlie so much of what we call mathematics and science today. The collapse of the Islamic world into fundamentalism is one of the most tragic occurrences in human history.
Logged

Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8859



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: September 14, 2013, 06:04:07 PM »

Not to mention that there are a bunch of dating methods. 
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

Quote from: McBa1n
http://www.vuvuzela.fm BVVVVVVVVVVVRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3402



View Profile WWW
« Reply #67 on: September 14, 2013, 07:28:09 PM »

Quote from: Razgon on September 14, 2013, 07:16:03 AM

Quote from: Ironrod on September 13, 2013, 09:55:56 PM

Quote from: Razgon on September 13, 2013, 06:59:51 AM

Edit: I will have to check if creationism is taught as well.

It's my understanding that creationism has no currency outside of the US (except as a fringe belief at most, certainly not as a "science"), so I'd be interested to know if it has a toehold in Denmark.

And you are right - My GF, who is a teacher , hadn't even heard about it, and she teaches religion classes.

That is reassuring.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 412


View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2013, 07:49:51 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 14, 2013, 04:01:28 PM

Quote from: Rip on September 14, 2013, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on September 13, 2013, 09:55:56 PM

Quote from: Razgon on September 13, 2013, 06:59:51 AM

Edit: I will have to check if creationism is taught as well.

It's my understanding that creationism has no currency outside of the US (except as a fringe belief at most, certainly not as a "science"), so I'd be interested to know if it has a toehold in Denmark.

Islam while not taking a somewhat different view isn't scientific in any way. It seems to have a little traction outside the U.S. as well.

Modern-day fundamentalist Islam does have a pretty bad track record as it goes with science. Which is ironic, considering that the Islamic world is what drove science forward during the European dark age. And it is Islamic mathematics, particularly in the form of algebra, that underlie so much of what we call mathematics and science today. The collapse of the Islamic world into fundamentalism is one of the most tragic occurrences in human history.

I love it when I find things we see the same. Painful to see such a noble religion drug down so far. The damge it is doing to religion as a whole is startling.
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 14, 2013, 09:29:44 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 14, 2013, 03:01:01 PM

Quote from: Purge on September 14, 2013, 04:27:50 AM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 13, 2013, 10:30:16 PM

The point I'm making is that there are two major problems with this idea: science is not a framework of beliefs, and it is demonstrably right.

Your first statement is correct in it's incorrectness - science cannot disprove what it cannot know, and as such ideas are formed around the data. There is interpretation, and both bias and belief leak into what we term "science".


Potassium-40 decays into stable Calcium and Argon with a half-life of about 1.25 billion years.  Since Argon is largely nonreactive and not otherwise an inherent element in igneous rock, scientists are able to determine the age of rock samples from deep inside the Earth by comparing the amount of Argon to the remaining amount of Potassium-40.

K-Ar dating has been largely superseded by Ar-Ar dating now, but as the older test, it's had more time to be vetted by the global community...particularly by those who believe that the elements did not even exist as recently as 6,000 years ago.

What is the specific nature of the bias you believe may have corrupted the results of this method, so that every laboratory in the world is able to produce consistent results over thousands of separate tests, and are all billions of years off the mark?

-Autistic Angel

You cannot know the unknown - and you need to accept that.

People, whether it be done by thousands of people all over the world, have come to some consensus that this is a safe method of dating the age of materials.

10 years from now there could be a breakthrough that shows this method to be flawed, due to the nature of some unknown accelerating catalyst which skews all the numbers.

In the definition of the scientific method:

Quote
A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

there is no word stating that conclusions are absolute. Progress is made sometimes in small steps, or in leaps and bounds based on discoveries - but science is exploratory - and when that which is believed to be foundation can no longer be questioned BECAUSE of the belief, and, ignoring evidence to the contrary, it breaks down.

So carbon dating (which Grim followed up with other methods) is sound, repeatable and provable. But should something come to light, it is in the best interests of science that we simply don't dismiss it out of hand (there are reasonable grounds for dismissal) simply because "it's always been done that way".

I would also like to be clear - I think creationism is loony - it's a selfish view of life where we are somehow more important than anything else, and I don't believe the world to be 6000 years old, and if you could ask the surgeon to re-attach my testicles front-ways now that he's done with the thorough examination of my gender, I'd surely appreciate it. slywink
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 09:33:57 PM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Harpua3
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2724


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: September 24, 2013, 07:23:27 AM »

Quote from: Gratch on September 12, 2013, 04:04:17 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 03:18:55 PM

I wish we could discuss issues like this without calling other people's faith "bullshit."

Isn't that the crux of the problem though?  It's "faith" not "science", yet they're trying to teach it as hard fact.

Indeed you fucked that turkey in the ass...erm, nailed that one on the head sounds better.
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #71 on: September 24, 2013, 01:34:19 PM »

Faith is well documented - it is factual that it's what they believe. stirthepot

There was a line from AC3's opening that I think is relevant to this discussion:

"To the victor goes the spoils - and the truth."

Even now, history books are being rewritten. Christopher Columbus was a hero, and now not-so-much. Discoveries are being made everyday about what we "believed" to be fact, which are now disputed and sometimes disproven. Records of events past are tainted with bias, and so that undermines the position that historical record is "fact" (and we often put some of this under the name "science").

Fact of the matter is it isn't faith vs. science - as science was only brought in to disprove some of the pillars supporting certain faiths (world creation, for instance). Science isn't interested in faith at all - but we as people keep injecting belief into our science. Science is the process of discovery and challenging itself (but now I'm just rehashing).

I think religion should be (and often is) a parallel in discussions in history. It is historical record vs. faith-based record that we're talking about here. The only field where science and faith have conflict is in medical treatments - and faith is a placebo according to science (in the truest sense - the non-medicinal route sometimes works with no explanation other than that).

[edit] I was not all there when I wrote the first version - perhaps overtired.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2013, 01:15:02 PM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
coopasonic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4127



View Profile WWW
« Reply #72 on: September 24, 2013, 09:41:50 PM »

Quote from: Razgon on September 13, 2013, 06:59:51 AM

In Denmark we have Religion as part of normal school. Its taught for 4 years and covers all major religions, their belief systems, and their history. Since religion is a major part of eveyday life, even for people without faith in any of them, its important to understand in order to understand basic human motivations and society at large as well.

In high school in the late 80s in rural New York (yes, there is such a thing), I took an elective class called Mythology. I would love to see what would happen if such a class were taught in Texas today (I have lived in Texas for 15 years, both my kids were born in Texas and will graduate from Texas schools someday). It covered the sorts of mythologies you would expect like Greek, Roman and Norse, but it also covered a few other mythologies, like Christianity and Judaism. You can probably imagine my bible thumping aunt's reaction when I told her about my teenage revelation on the similarities between Christianity and Greek Mythology. I wonder if they still teach that class and if they still include active religions.

I went to church on and off until I was 12 or 13, sometimes with my mom, sometimes with grandma, sometimes all by myself. Eventually I stopped going but couldn't explain why. That class talked about why religion is so important and the innate need to believe in something greater and I finally had an explanation of the behavior of others I could understand and didn't need to explore religion any more.

That is the kind of religious education I would like to see... that will probably never happen here.
Logged

It was this moment that took the movie from being a little ho-hum to “holy shit, did that shark just eat a plane!?”
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 90 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.025s, 2q)