Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Good & Bad Science"... A Short Summary of a University Course
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6229 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 1 of 13 (107688)
05-12-2004 7:20 AM


Very recently I registered on this site. I decided to create a topic to introduce myself in.
My original post reads:
Me, Kent writes:
Just signed on and felt it would be the courteous thing to do to introduce myself to the good people here.
How I got here:
I signed on, not because I felt the need to make myself heard (I was actually very comfortable with just lurking around here), but rather because some glitch in the system (I can only assume something has been changed recently) made it impossible for me to view the forums without registering (whatever forum I'd chose I'd only get a prompt telling me to login... maybe I should report this to an admin?).
Now that I am indeed signed up I find it more likely that I'll be doing some posting...
About me:
I'm not a biologist nor do I do any work in any of the fields of science that touch upon evolution (I'm currently studying mainly plasma physics, and will hopefully get a chance to work on NASA's Vasimir project soon enough).
My interest in the subject (Evolution Vs. Creation) stemmed from a university course I was taking, called "Good & Bad Science" during which the topic of Creationism was brought up. I was directed to TalkOrigins.org and later I found myself lurking the forums here, reading, but never responding.
Basically, living in a country where Creationism doesn't have a very strong foothold in the population, and where there is no "controversy" about whether or not it should be tought in science class or not I found the topic interesting, and kind of got "hooked" I guess.
Well, that's me. Hopefully I will be able to contribute ever so slightly to the forums (although I might stay relatively quiet) without causing too big of a mess.
/Cheers.
(this post and the associated topic can be found here.)
To this opening post, Sylas kindly proposed that I create a new topic here, where I tell You a bit about the course I mentioned, and what it covered this with the hopes that some interesting discussion might possibly follow.
First of all, I’ll try to say a few words about the course as a whole:
The course was divided up into sixteen lectures (held between 7 and 9 PM once a week) of two ours each. Every lecture had a different topic, and every topic had a different lecturer, often invited from other universities from across Sweden, in order to get as qualified people as possible to speak in their respective fields. At times this worked out quite well, since some of these guest lecturers where quite eloquent, and knew exactly how to keep the crowd interested, and at other times it didn’t work out quite as well (the downside of looking to get the people who are most qualified in their fields, and not the ones who are the best at presenting information in a simple, understandable way).
The form of each lecture depended mostly on the lecturer but often it didn’t stray too far from the accepted I speak, You listen format (with a lot of illustrative pictures and some discussion with the class involved of course).
First of all, I’ll try to cover, as simply as possible, what the two first lectures where about. Then I will try to bring up a few examples of the good and bad science that was discussed (though not all, since there was a lot) in the fourteen lectures that followed.
The What is Science? Portion (Lectures 1 - 2):
What kind of knowledge do we hope to gain from doing science?
The concepts of objective knowledge and intersubjective knowledge are brough forth and explained, as well as the problem with speaking of truth when approaching science.
How do we observe?
The limits of the observer and his/her senses are discussed, as well as the importance of using technology to aide us in observations.
To some degree source critiscism, or drawing conclusions from an other individual's observations is discussed.
How do we perform experiments?
The principles of setting up an experiment are discussed.
The importance of controlling and separating variables is discussed, as well as the importance of documenting the experiment in a proper way.
The concept of repeatability is brough forth and discussed to great detail. (What good is a recipie for pie if it only works for certain people, for instance only the people who believe that it will work, or have Soul?)
Do we seek to verify or falsify?
Karl Popper’s suggestion that we should never try to verify, but always falsify a theory is brough forth, as well as the weaknesses in his argument.
The strength and weaknesses of trying to verify Vs. trying to falsify is discussed through example.
The Science (Good & Bad) Portion (Lectures 3-16):
Evolution: How do we know it occurred?
The evidence, some of which (at the time) went over the heads of me and my friends, is brough forth.
An entire lecture, which I had a hard time understanding (partially because the lecturer wasn’t that good, partially because it was pretty late, and partially because it was pretty hard stuff to wrap your head around) was devoted to the molecular evidence and lineages.
The Argument for Creationism
The standard Creationist arguments and fallacies are discussed. Strawmen and abundances of quotes taken out of context are discussed.
Mostly this lecture concentrated on disproving a young earth, and attempts to explain the fossil records via the biblical Flood.
Big Bang: How can we know anything?
The evidence for what is called the Big Bang, such as Red shift, CMB, the age of the stars, and the relative proportions of certain isotopes (Hydrogen, Helium, Beryllium & Lithium ) are brought up.
Perpetum Mobile and Cold Fusion
The laws of thermodynamics are discussed: What are they, and why do we believe that they are correct?
The incident from way back when successful experiments showing cold fusion where prematurely reported is discussed.
Parapsychology, Astrology, Mystiscism, and dowsing for water/magnetic field lines
What tests are there to parapsychological phenomena? How should one approach devising a test for parapsychological phenomena?
What is Astrology, and what tests have been made?
The System of Control within Science, and Critiquing your sources
Peer-Review among other things is discussed, as well as how to gain knowledge from other peoples work in a safe manner.
This is just a taste of what was discussed during the course, more precisely, it is the portions that I remember the most vividly. Every title doesn’t necessarily represent one lecture, but rather I have chosen to lump some of the lectures together.
How each lecture was held varied somewhat. The lecture on Creationism was constructed with one hour of normal (I speak, You listen) lecture, and one hour spent with the class asking questions and the lecturer checking the answers directly on TalkOrigins.org.
In addition to the sixteen lectures we also had a seminar where we critiqued a paper documenting an experiment where the author dowsed for magnetic field lines with a stick.
Personally I enjoyed the course a lot, among other things it brought the topic of Creationism to my attention, and ultimately brought me to this very site. My friends who took the same course seemed to enjoy it as much as I did, and after each lecture we’d invariably end up at the pub discussing the topic of the day over a few beers, often having a few chuckles over the mere sillyness of some of the things people try to pass off as science.

"tellement loin de ce monde..."

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 05-12-2004 9:38 PM Maxwell's Demon has not replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 05-12-2004 10:07 PM Maxwell's Demon has not replied
 Message 5 by Sylas, posted 05-12-2004 10:46 PM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 13 (107696)
05-12-2004 9:27 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3 of 13 (107795)
05-12-2004 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Maxwell's Demon
05-12-2004 7:20 AM


^Bump^
This thread now open for business. The "double quote in the thread title" bug has been fixed. You can now use double quotes in both thread titles and message subtitles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-12-2004 7:20 AM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 4 of 13 (107799)
05-12-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Maxwell's Demon
05-12-2004 7:20 AM


Such a course needs to be a requirement for college graduation over here. Imagine! Actually forcing kids to think even if they've never tried it before! Kent, do you think that education might explain why we have the creationists over here, but you have none there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-12-2004 7:20 AM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 5 of 13 (107806)
05-12-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Maxwell's Demon
05-12-2004 7:20 AM


Sounds like it would have been a lot of fun! I'm especially interested in the apparently strong use of the talkorigins archive. I have a strong involvement in that archive, mainly in answering feedback.
Can you tell us what institution presented it, and the unit co-ordinator? Did students receive credit for the unit?
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-12-2004 7:20 AM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6229 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 6 of 13 (107859)
05-13-2004 9:22 AM


Well... It was some time since I took the course (almost 2 years now), and I'm notoriously bad at keeping a record of these things. To top it off I think the system of credits and such (Unit Coordinator?) differs a bit inbetween countries...
If I remember correctly I believe it was a cooperation between the Institution of Physics at SU (Stockholm University) and the Institute of Philosophy at RIT (The Royal Institute of Technology).
The course was most definately not mandatory, so it couldn't possibly have any income on the ammount of Creationist here...
As to why there seems to be less Creationists here (or in the very least less vocal Creationists ) I can't really say... I'd guess it might have some connection to the political history of our country... but I wouldn't bet on it.
[Added by Edit]
About Talkorigins, it might be possible that our guest lecturer has some connection to it as well... I'll have to check up on that.
This message has been edited by Kent, 05-13-2004 08:24 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Sylas, posted 05-13-2004 10:19 AM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 7 of 13 (107874)
05-13-2004 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Maxwell's Demon
05-13-2004 9:22 AM


Teaching pseudoscience at KTH and Wooster
I think I have found details of your course on-line.
There is a unit 1H1602 taught at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and co-ordinated by Professor Sven Ove Hansson. Extract:
Good and Bad Science
This is an interdisciplinary course on quality issues related to the natural sciences.
Aim
The aim is to show how to distinguish between good and bad science, and between science and different forms of pseudo-science. The course aims at making its students better prepared to critically assess, from a scientific point of view, claims that are said to be scientifically proven.
It looks like an interesting unit!
There is another unit I have heard about which is taught at the College of Wooster in Ohio, USA, by Professor Mark Wilson.
The unit is Geology 350: Geology Confronts Creationism. It looks like a substantially more tightly focused unit and advanced unit, focussing on geology in particular and making quite heavy research demands on the students. There are four textbooks listed. They are:
Mark Wilson has also taught a more general unit, which seems more similar to the KTH unit. It is Nonsense in America: The Lure of the Irrational. Extract:
Welcome to your First-Year Seminar course (officially known as Interdepartmental 101-34). There is a deep well of irrationality in the United States. Popular authors describe government conspiracies behind UFOs, the origin of AIDS, and the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Historical accounts are "revised" to fit the prejudices, hopes and fears of particular groups. Psychics communicate with the dead to ease our grief, creationists battle evolution to maintain a special view of God and nature, and astrologers plot our destinies in the stars. Do we have logical tools to sort sense from nonsense? What are the dangers to society when irrationality is so common? In this seminar we will examine numerous "weird things" with original literature, sceptical accounts, websites, and popular films.
The reason why you are enrolled in a First-Year Seminar, though, goes well beyond any topic. Since this is one of your first courses at the College, it is explicitly designed to introduce you to "critical thinking" and written and oral expression. We are investigating ideas -- where they come from, how they are supported, and whether they are worth considering, let alone adopting. The specific conclusions we draw about particular ideas will be less important than the tools we employ in making such decisions.
Such courses as established at the KTH and at Wooster show how pseudoscience can be usefully included in education. I know that my own involvement in talkorigins and later in groups like evcforum have been an amazing avenue for learning about all kinds of aspects of science that I would otherwise have missed.
Creationists often demand "teaching both theories". In making this suggestion, they seem to think that the role of education is to teach students the scientific models. But the courses listed above have a much stronger pedagogical basis. They aim to teach critical thinking, and equip students not merely to know the models, but to be able to evaluate them. A course on conflicting ideas, which does not encourage students to make a good critical evaluation to help identify which one make more sense, is less than half of an education. And a teacher who is not themselves sufficiently well informed to make that judgement is not able to guide others in developing that skill.
Creationists won't like this. They will see these courses as an unfair poisoning of the well. But they are wrong.
Creationism -- and astrology, dowsing, catastrophism, etc -- have no credibility not because of bias, but because they cannot stand up to an an informed critical study, and collapse like a house of cards on the slightest real analysis.
Cheers -- Sylas
(Edit to put in regular Sylas mode, not Admin mode.)
This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-13-2004 09:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-13-2004 9:22 AM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 05-13-2004 3:18 PM Sylas has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 13 (107973)
05-13-2004 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Sylas
05-13-2004 10:19 AM


Re: Teaching pseudoscience at KTH and Wooster
quote:
Creationists won't like this. They will see these courses as an unfair poisoning of the well. But they are wrong.
Creationism -- and astrology, dowsing, catastrophism, etc -- have no credibility not because of bias, but because they cannot stand up to an an informed critical study, and collapse like a house of cards on the slightest real analysis.
--No creationist who thinks that 'The Young Earth by John Morris' is a credible source of information will at least. The unfortunate truth, however, is that most creationists would--they tend to agree on a prevailing fallacious scientific methodology. Which provides that class with an easy way to bag on creationists because the ones they are critiquing don't know what they are talking about. I would enjoy the class nonetheless.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Sylas, posted 05-13-2004 10:19 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Sylas, posted 05-13-2004 6:51 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 9 of 13 (108026)
05-13-2004 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TrueCreation
05-13-2004 3:18 PM


Re: Teaching pseudoscience at KTH and Wooster
TrueCreation writes:
... Which provides that class with an easy way to bag on creationists because the ones they are critiquing don't know what they are talking about. ...
{ Quote of entire previous post pruned, as advised by Adminniemooseus. Sylas. }
Which creationist do you consider does know what they are talking about? I'm interested to know, because you do seem to someone who makes a serious attempt to be honest in evaluations, and I respect that.
John Morris is president of the ICR, which is one of the major young earth creationist organizations, and arguably the only major creationist organization making a serious attempt to organize and support active co-ordinated research in support of creationism.
The other creationist text used is primarily by Steve Austin. Would you consider him an easy target? That also is a serious question. He is an interesting case, because he writes directly in his own field of expertise, being geology.
If someone knew no geology, then Steve Austin would not be an easy target at all. But someone who had no background in the topics John Morris considers would not find him an easy target either. Even a little bit of geology, however, should be enough to bring a student to a level where they can make a critical evaluation of Steve Austin's work; and once you have that knowledge, I think Austin would be an easy target as well. They all are.
Also check the links and look at the extensive consideration in the course of a pile of others (like Russell Humphreys); and the scope for an independent research project. The course covers a lot of ground... possibly too much. Wilson's naked contempt for the quality of creationism is clear in the pages; but I'm in two minds as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
It doesn't matter what you pick; some creationist is going to say that you are picking an easy target and ignoring their own evidence; but good luck finding that same creationist giving a careful critique of the other.
It is a difficult problem; because as far as I can tell, most young earth creationists either don't know what they are talking about, or else they are deliberately distorting what they talk about, or else they are just not saying anything.
I agree entirely that John Morris is not a credible source of information. But in my opinion, neither is Russell Humphreys. Or Steve Austin. Or Jonathan Sarfati. Or Larry Vardiman. Or Andrew Snelling. Or Carl Wieland. Or Robert Gentry. Or Philip Johnson. Or William Dembski. Or Carl Baugh. Or Ken Ham.
In fact, a sorrier bunch of clowns would be hard to imagine.
Cheers — Sylas
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-14-2004 07:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 05-13-2004 3:18 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 05-14-2004 3:08 PM Sylas has replied
 Message 11 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-14-2004 3:30 PM Sylas has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 13 (108230)
05-14-2004 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Sylas
05-13-2004 6:51 PM


Re: Teaching pseudoscience at KTH and Wooster
quote:
Which creationist do you consider does know what they are talking about? I'm interested to know, because you do seem to someone who makes a serious attempt to be honest in evaluations, and I respect that.
--There is only one scientist who is a proponent of some form of YECism that I can confidently say knows what he is talking about--John Baumgardner. At least in his geophysical work (as I can critique and analyze his research in this field).
quote:
John Morris is president of the ICR, which is one of the major young earth creationist organizations, and arguably the only major creationist organization making a serious attempt to organize and support active co-ordinated research in support of creationism.
--True, and I'm glad they exist (ICR, in my opinion, has more credibility than, say, AiG). But I like to critique individuals work, not the opinions of organizations. If I were a YEC, I wouldn't mind being a part of the ICR, or even AiG for that matter. I just wouldn't acknowledge that I agree with their 'tenents' or anything else that modifies a sound methodology of scientific inquiry. If they didn't like it, fine I wouldn't join, but if they could stand it, alrighty then.
quote:
The other creationist text used is primarily by Steve Austin. Would you consider him an easy target? That also is a serious question. He is an interesting case, because he writes directly in his own field of expertise, being geology.
--I've not read much of Austin's work, but I would say he has more credibility than Morris--albeit he probably is still lacking. I am trying not to be prejudicial or make conclusions based on what I've heard or mere quotes I have read. I havent read 'Monuments to catastrophe' either.
quote:
If someone knew no geology, then Steve Austin would not be an easy target at all. But someone who had no background in the topics John Morris considers would not find him an easy target either. Even a little bit of geology, however, should be enough to bring a student to a level where they can make a critical evaluation of Steve Austin's work; and once you have that knowledge, I think Austin would be an easy target as well. They all are.
--Baumgardner's geophysical work however, isn't.
quote:
Also check the links and look at the extensive consideration in the course of a pile of others (like Russell Humphreys); and the scope for an independent research project. The course covers a lot of ground... possibly too much. Wilson's naked contempt for the quality of creationism is clear in the pages; but I'm in two minds as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
--I think it can be both a good thing and a bad thing. I guess it depends on how prejudicial and credulous the student is.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-14-2004 02:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Sylas, posted 05-13-2004 6:51 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 8:50 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 11 of 13 (108233)
05-14-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Sylas
05-13-2004 6:51 PM


Comments on quoting (off-topic, no replies please)
In the past we have disabled the "Reply with Quote" function because it resulted in quoting of excessive amounts of text, which when broken up into small quotation units often resulted in a big mess.
The bottom line is that forum policy has been to discourage the quoting of entire messages in the manner you have done (especially with quotes withing quotes). It adds extra bulk, and the quoted material is readily available, in this case at the previous message.
Please, no replies to this off-topic message, unless the admin-mode wants to make an addition by edit.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Sylas, posted 05-13-2004 6:51 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 12 of 13 (108294)
05-14-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
05-14-2004 3:08 PM


Re: Teaching pseudoscience at KTH and Wooster
TrueCreation writes:
--There is only one scientist who is a proponent of some form of YECism that I can confidently say knows what he is talking about--John Baumgardner. At least in his geophysical work (as I can critique and analyze his research in this field).
Yes; John Baumgardner is an interesting case; and a legitimate example of a real scientist actively working within the mainstream and also applying his own area of expertise directly to proposing creationist models. Glenn Morton speaks highly of him as well; although I'm not persuaded. Dr Baumgardner and his runaway subduction model does show up in the course notes of Mark Wilson's course. This is not a good thread to consider individual creationist ideas in detail, so I may propose a new thread to look at Baumgardner's ideas. If it comes on-line, I may edit a link into this post.
Thanks for the answer; this could be an interesting spin-off!. Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 05-14-2004 3:08 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 05-15-2004 12:32 PM Sylas has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 13 (108404)
05-15-2004 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Sylas
05-14-2004 8:50 PM


Re: Teaching pseudoscience at KTH and Wooster
quote:
This is not a good thread to consider individual creationist ideas in detail, so I may propose a new thread to look at Baumgardner's ideas. If it comes on-line, I may edit a link into this post.
Thanks for the answer; this could be an interesting spin-off!
--That would be interesting, and I would enjoy participating.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 8:50 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024