|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2374 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
One of the things I'm up against with fundamentalists is as you know, the position: "Science is often wrong and has been wrong about almost everything at one time or another, so why should be we believe science on anything".. This has been just *drilled* into the young minds for generations and they of course can come up with scores of examples to highlight that position.
When they say to me "Turns out science was wrong about X", my first and honest reaction is to grin and say "Yeah, ain't it cool? Science insists on change as new information comes to light." For me, growing up in a rigid environment where everything was supposedly perfect and fixed for eternity (when I could see it wasn't), the relatively supple nature of science was freedom to explore and discover. To me that's a strength of science, not a weakness and I really can't help but smile when I think about the changes science has gone through. But then I broke free of the programming fairly early. Here's the weird part -- no matter how much they complain about science being wrong, they drive cars packed with technology and use satellites to spread "the word of God" (just two examples). No matter how much they bitch about the "traditional medical establishment", when their life is on the line they dial up 911 (from their cell phones) and beg to be taken to an emergency room. I have to figure out a way to get them past the "Science can't be trusted because it makes mistakes" programming. They fly on airliners for crying out loud. Yes, I know it will take time, but I'm in for the long haul. My methods need to be just step by step, but I do need a plan in the curriculum. Do you folk think that as science has broken free from theology it has come to react faster to mistakes than in the past? Do you think that as science participation has multiplied (exponentially?) more eyes on the prize have created a more robust correction mechanism? Was the 1300 years of scientific error between Ptolemy and Copernicus caused by lack of scientific participation, lack of scientific tools, or theology holding science back (or all of the above)? Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part, but it seems to me that science has the basic knowledge, the tools and the participation to be far better at getting things right in a timely manner than in the past. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The ORNL is legendary in my family due to the despicable way they treated Robert Gentry, the Seventh Day Adventist man who while doing research there proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through polonium halos that the earth was created ex nihilo just a few thousand years ago. Once he proved this conclusively and exposed their satanic lies, they blacklisted him from the scientific community and destroyed his reputation and his work. His example is proof that the scientific community is evil and isn't interested in the truth at all but will terrorize anyone brave enough to go up against it. oboy oboy oboy is that one ever a persistent YEC claim. I had fun with a poster on that a while back, showing a radon halo on one of Gentry's photos ... see Message 69 and onward on the polonium halos thread. Here are some images where I took Gentry's photos into autocad and drew circles for the different isotopes making the halos:
quote: This picture shows a Radon ring, third in from the outside, which would be impossible if the decay started with Polonium. Radon is an inert gas that seeps through the smallest fractures, such as the plane fissures in crystals perpendicular to these photos. So much fun by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Do you folk think that as science has broken free from theology it has come to react faster to mistakes than in the past? Do you think that as science participation has multiplied (exponentially?) more eyes on the prize have created a more robust correction mechanism? Was the 1300 years of scientific error between Ptolemy and Copernicus caused by lack of scientific participation, lack of scientific tools, or theology holding science back (or all of the above)? We stand on the shoulders of giants, and this let's us see further than before.
When they say to me "Turns out science was wrong about X", my first and honest reaction is to grin and say "Yeah, ain't it cool? Science insists on change as new information comes to light." ... Science is a way to approximate our understanding of reality, and every step closer means that science changes, but not that the previous approximation was wrong, just not as good as the current one, or the one to come. Newtonian gravity explained things quite well, and was used to land the rovers on mars, but it has been superseded by relativity. Relativity reduces to newton gravity near a planet, but it didn't explain the orbit of Mercury: relativity does. So Newton wasn't wrong, just not as accurate as Relativity. By eliminating what we know to be false, whatever is left, no matter how improbable it seems, is likely to be more right than before. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
One of the things I'm up against with fundamentalists is as you know, the position: "Science is often wrong and has been wrong about almost everything at one time or another, so why should be we believe science on anything".. This has been just *drilled* into the young minds for generations and they of course can come up with scores of examples to highlight that position.
When I learned to tie my shoes, I was wrong at first... I suppose that means that shoes don't exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
TAD writes: One of the things I'm up against with fundamentalists is as you know, the position: "Science is often wrong and has been wrong about almost everything at one time or another, so why should be we believe science on anything".. This has been just *drilled* into the young minds for generations and they of course can come up with scores of examples to highlight that position. Well that is just a lie isn't it? Science has not been wrong about everything. If that was true, none of the things that you mention below - cars, sat navs, computer, modern medicines etc - would exist. If they say such things they need to be quizzed further about it. Specifically what has science been wrong about? Out of the millions of scientific ideas there are few major errors and almost all predate the scientific age proper. Remember, there are more scientists alive today that there have been in the entirety of human history combined. Here's a list of scientific theories that have been superseded: Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia Note that many of them preceded the scientific age and are several hundred years old. All have been corrected by the application of the scientific method. None have been helped by any single religious belief system and all of them have been improved by further work and evidence. Science is a process of refinenment.
When they say to me "Turns out science was wrong about X", my first and honest reaction is to grin and say "Yeah, ain't it cool? Science insists on change as new information comes to light." It's not just new information that changes science, that's an important part of it, but for me what is more important is the process of independent, third party testing of the new discoveries in science. If it was me doing this, I'd research the false claim by science of cold fusion and show how the scientific method both created the false discovery but then very quickly debunked it. The scientific community's reason for existence and designed in motivation is to prove others wrong, this is a powerful counterbalancing force that doesn't exist in any other discipline. For example a scientist proving the theory of evolution wrong, would win the Nobel prize. That is an amazing thing - you get the highest accolade in science by knocking over the biggest 'belief' in the natural sciences. That's a powerful motivator to try to do it. This is utterly contrary to what religionists believe about science, so it should be explained over and over.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Asimov covered that issue very well in The Relativity of Wrong (I think that's not it's original publication).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2374 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
JonF writes: Asimov covered that issue very well in The Relativity of Wrong (I think that's not it's original publication). Oh, that is PERFECT!! Thanks JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When I learned to tie my shoes, I was wrong at first... A common mistake is to tie a "Granny" knot type bow knot where the loops exit ~perpendicular to the beginning alignment. This is improved on by tying a "Square" knot type bow knot where the loops exit ~parallel to the beginning alignment. Then there is the scientifically tested "Double" bow knot where the loops are tied again, and in the process lose the ability to be untied by pulling the ends. Finally there is the scientifically tested "Better" bow knot that takess the "Square" bow and wraps the loop twice:
It makes a nice looking knot and still remains easy to pull an end to untie. Great for boots. Learn it and you will never go back to those old knots that just don't work ... as well.
When I learned to tie my shoes, ... Learning is an ongoing process. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Do you folk think that as science has broken free from theology it has come to react faster to mistakes than in the past?
I don't think this is much of a factor. Both science and theology are human endeavors, and humans tend to get entrenched and stubborn about ANY position that they hold, whether in science theology, or politics. They tend to be especially stubborn if they've long held a view and taken a public stand on it. Luie's asteroid theory took a decade to become accepted. Some of his vocal critics never did change their mind, and the community just had to wait until they retired. If science reacts faster to mistakes now than in the past, I suspect it's manly because communications is much faster today and information is easier to access.
Do you think that as science participation has multiplied (exponentially?) more eyes on the prize have created a more robust correction mechanism?
Yes, I think this is true.
Was the 1300 years of scientific error between Ptolemy and Copernicus caused by lack of scientific participation, lack of scientific tools, or theology holding science back (or all of the above)?
I think it was due rather to the prevailing culture of the day (the "Zeitgeist") and to the fact that modern science and modern scientific ways of thinking hadn't been born yet. The academic culture of philosophy/science rested heavily on Aristotle and philosophical reasoning. Science was of the armchair variety, with no appreciation for experiment (to be provided by Bacon), for mathematical rigor (to be provided by Kepler), or for abstraction to fundamental principles (to be provided by Galileo). The enlightenment or Reformation had not occurred, and people were not comfortable thinking "outside the box". Many people don't realize it, but Galileo's earliest and strongest opposition came from academia, not from the Church. In fact, the Church encouraged Galileo's early telescope investigations. But the academics had significant pull with the Church, Galileo was very abrasive, and eventually the Church turned against him. (His "Dialogues" didn't help, where his simple-minded "Simplicio" was an allegorical figure of the pope.) An accurate re-telling of Galileo's story might be helpful to your audience. The "scientists" of the day were wrong; based on Aristotle, they declared that the earth must be fixed. The theologians were wrong; they had accepted Aristotelianism and the science of the day, and they interpreted Scripture to fit these. BOTH the scientists and the theologians needed to go back to the drawing board and to re-examine their interpretations."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
JonF writes: Asimov covered that issue very well in The Relativity of Wrong (I think that's not it's original publication). Oh, that is PERFECT!! Indeed, it shows that each approximation improved on the previous, which was based on the evidence then available. As new information was found the approximations were improved. Another thing to note is that each approximation can still be used: when we travel we use flat maps that show us how to get around. Even topo maps show the contours of the land on a flat plan, because those local variations are greater than the effect of the earth's curvature at the local scale. When navigating a ship it is convenient to use flat local charts, but long voyages need to make corrections for the curvature. If you want the shortest route across an ocean, you can plot a straight line on a chart and it will be too long because of the way the chart is distorted -- a "great circle" path plotted on a globe will look like an arc on the chart. When using a sextant you measure the height of the sun at local noon to find your latitude -- based on the spherical model of the earth, and globes can be used to navigate as well. The error from sphere to oblate spheroid is too small to see on a globe, likewise the pear bias between north and south hemispheres. You can also discuss π and the increasingly accurate approximations: 33.1 3.14 3.142 3.1416 3.14159 etc. Each approximation improves on the previous, and each has their uses. Another popular approximation is 22/7 = 3.142857 ... with 0.04% error. You can "ball-park" the volume of a sphere by calculating 4r^3 (by using π = 3) so a 12" sphere would work out to 6912 cubic inches. Or you can use π = 3.14 to get 4(3.14)r^3/3 = 7234.56 cubic inches (adds 322.56 cuin) Or using π = 3.14159 you get 7238.22336 cubic inches (adds 3.66336 cuin) Or using the value for π in my calculator you get 7238.229473871 cubic inches (adds 0.006113871 cuin) ... and the original approximation (3) was 95.5% accurate (-4.5% error). Using 3 is not wrong so much as it is not as accurate as later approximations, but it is a calculation that I can do in my head (which I can improve by adding half of 10% to get 7257.6 cubic inches with +0.25% error). Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2374 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
kbertsche writes: Many people don't realize it, but Galileo's earliest and strongest opposition came from academia, not from the Church. In fact, the Church encouraged Galileo's early telescope investigations. But the academics had significant pull with the Church, Galileo was very abrasive, and eventually the Church turned against him. That's really interesting and highlights something that I've wondered about as I read the accounts -- there was a delay of something like 65 years between the death of Copernicus (and the publishing of his seminal work) and the decree that his book(s) be put on the banned list of the church. I never could figure out why that delay. Would love to read more about that. Distinctly different from the Catholic Church, the Protestant reformers (Calvin, Melanchthon, Luther, et al) responded quite rapidly with denouncement. I've always wondered why the Protestants responded 50 years quicker than the Catholics and then why after waiting so long, the Catholics responded with such fervor. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2374 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
kbertsche writes: If science reacts faster to mistakes now than in the past, I suspect it's manly because communications is much faster today and information is easier to access. Of all the inputs I have considered, participation numbers and ease of communication would certainly seem to me to be the overwhelming drivers of progress. Certainly, even great participation doesn't do much good with that large group being able to communicate so I think I would have to go with your observation as the primary driver. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2374 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Tangle writes: Well that is just a lie isn't it? Science has not been wrong about everything. If that was true, none of the things that you mention below - cars, sat navs, computer, modern medicines etc - would exist. If they say such things they need to be quizzed further about it. Specifically what has science been wrong about? Well as you know, they apply the same level of logic to those statement as they do to flood geology so it's not that they are true, it's that I have to overcome the programming that makes them simply believe they are true. Yes, there will be a quiz.
Here's a list of scientific theories that have been superseded: Not Found Oh YES, that's information I can really use. THANKS!! JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
ThinAirDesigns writes: I'm pretty sure she has imagined all her young life that science operates just like the religion she knows... One of my favourite examples of science for teaching science is an "absurd conclusion" example.Going through the process of science to come to an obvious-to-us false conclusion... but the conclusion 100% relies on the evidence-at-hand in the example. This shows how science comes to conclusions... based on evidence. My personal favourite is one I made up: The Absurd Bird example I live on an island with a tribe of people.The island has no birds on it, ever. As far as the evidence that I have goes, no birds exist. People come to visit our island sometimes, and they tell us of birds from their island (and, yes, birds actually do exist on their island, I just don't know that yet). They tell me of birds and I don't believe them. Theory: All bird concepts are figments of the human imagination Over the course of known history (on my island, for as much as I know), no other source for birds has ever become known. Therefore:
Strong Theory: All birds are figments of the human imagination Sure, it's incorrect, but that's not the point.It is a good, strong scientific theory because it follows all the evidence I have completely. But what about the evidence of the people telling me about birds?Well, their say-so isn't evidence. it's just their say-so. It's not scientific. Now, if someone brings an actual bird to my island. Or, perhaps even the bones of a bird or something like that. Then, this theory would be destroyed on the spot and my scientific ideas of birds would need to be revised. But, what if people kept coming to the island and only saying and believing that birds exist? What if I asked for them to bring a bird?...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds? What if I asked for them to bring the bones of a bird?...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds? What if I asked for lots and lots of undoctored photographs of birds?...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds? What if I asked to go to their island to see birds for myself?...and they refuse to grant me access to their island? Yes, the theory (in the reality of this example) is 100% wrong.But... as far as the evidence that I have goes... the theory is strongly supported until it can be overturned by additional evidence. If (or when) it is overturned and updated... my theory has gotten closer to reality. This is how science progresses. We are humans that don't know everything. Science updates itself to reflect reality as we learn more and more. Science has a built-in function that ensures that we validate everything we claim to "know" instead of simply resting on anyone's "say-so."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2374 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
RAZD writes: Science is a way to approximate our understanding of reality, and every step closer means that science changes, but not that the previous approximation was wrong, just not as good as the current one, or the one to come. That is right on the mark with the Asimov essay and will be so helpful. ThanksJB
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024