 |
|
the_ceebs
|
|
quote:
When, where (other than micro-organisms)? |
Fruit flys
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_ceebs
The difference is that a Scientific theory is different to an everyday theory, it's not that a scientific theory is just an idea that a bloke had in a bar one night. |
Yes, they usually have it in the bath tub, don't they?
quote:
scientific theories are damn close to being proved |
and equally close to being disproved
quote:
in fact if you are looking at successful theories there are other big everyday theories that are not proven, how about the theory of gravity. |
 So now you're saying that proof isn't necisary for a scientific theory to be accepted?
quote:
If you are going to insist on a half baked idea like ID (It isn't a theory, find the merest shred of proof beyond wishful thinking and I may acknowledge an upgrade in its status) then I think you should also insist on alternate biblical explainations for all science being taught in classrooms
For example
Theory of Gravity
Ezekiel 33:10
"Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?" '
Theory of Reletivity
Light moves at 186,000 miles an hour but only after 4400 BC when god said let there be light
And please no Google for it replies, If you want us to believe you then present an argument . |
I'm not making an argument for creationism, I'm making an argument for an open forum, and against this ivory tower attitude.
Actually, this reminds me of a quote from a book I've read recently:
quote:
Scientism, the aura of authority carried by scientists, has made us believe that knowledge obtained by scientists is the ultimate authority, that as we accumulate information, our capacity to understand, control and manage our surroundings will grow correspondingly. But the basic principle of scientific exploration contradicts this faith: knowledge comes from empirical observations which are "made sense of" by hypotheses, which in turn can be experimentally tested All information is open to being disproved. As Jonathan Marks has pointed out;
... the vast majority of ideas that most scientists have ever had have been wrong. They have been refuted; they have been disposed of. Further, at any point in time, most ideas proposed by most scientists will ultimately be refuted and disposed of... Science, in other words, undermines scientism. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theben
quote:
... the vast majority of ideas that most scientists have ever had have been wrong. They have been refuted; they have been disposed of. Further, at any point in time, most ideas proposed by most scientists will ultimately be refuted and disposed of... Science, in other words, undermines scientism. |
Uh, not to end your quest, but that in fact only helps prove the validity of science. |
I wasn't questioning the "validity of science", I was crtisizing the attitude that most people have where, when presented with something outside of their percieved "scientific truth" simply laugh and shove it away, isntead of allowing for an open forum.
When discussing the origin of life, why not mention creationism aswell as evolution? The more theories the merrier. When you close out discussion and teach theories as being infallible truth, that is when science loses it's validilty - because it ceases to be an open forum and becomes an ivory tower. It's basically priests in lab coats at that point. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
When discussing the origin of life, why not mention creationism aswell as evolution? The more theories the merrier. When you close out discussion and teach theories as being infallible truth, that is when science loses it's validilty - because it ceases to be an open forum and becomes an ivory tower. It's basically priests in lab coats at that point. |
The origin of life isn't the domain of evolution, that's abiogenesis.
And as for why not mentioning creationism--well, I'm drawn back to my scenario of the hypothesis that aliens came down and built the pyramids. Why not discuss that as well in history classes?
Why should creationism get special consideration over the the 1,000,000,000 crackpot ideas that people want to insinuate into science, history, math, etc.? Just because it would take up a every minute of class time discussing the pseudoscientific or psuedohistorical alternatives is no reason not to do it, eh?
Education is about presenting mainstream views of what the experts believe, not about giving fair time to every idiot's whim. Science courses are about presenting science, not religious ideology gussied up as "theories," despite their having no evidence in their favor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
and equally close to being disproved
|
Actually no. The burden of proof is on the detractors of evolution, since evolution now has a vast body of correlating and mutually-supporting evidence behind it. It would be far more difficult to prove evolution than disprove it in the sense the concept was originally used (which I disagree with since it's always ultimately provisional).
quote:
So now you're saying that proof isn't necisary for a scientific theory to be accepted?
|
Again one accepts theories contingently, that are tested against empirical observations.
quote:
I'm not making an argument for creationism, I'm making an argument for an open forum, and against this ivory tower attitude.
|
Very well. But saying it is a theory does not equate evolution to other theories like creationism, since an accepted scientific theory is different from a fairy tale.
quote:
I wasn't questioning the "validity of science", I was crtisizing the attitude that most people have where, when presented with something outside of their percieved "scientific truth" simply laugh and shove it away, isntead of allowing for an open forum.
|
Yes I agree. THeories should be judged on their merits and not on how far they are from the mainstream. In that respect, creationism warrants very little respect by its merits, let alone be taught as scientific fact, or even an internally or externally consistent scientific theory.
quote:
When discussing the origin of life, why not mention creationism aswell as evolution?
|
Well like I said above, time devoted to teaching should be proportional to the theories scientific merit, hence we don't spend time teaching children that bodied of different mass will fall at different rates, which Galileo proved wrong, or that 2+2=3. The two theories may well be just that, theories, but one is worthy of far more praise than another, based upon its merits of internal reasoning and external compliance with empirical observation.
Now science does prove it's earlier theories to be wrong, but look at what actually happens there. When a theory is dogmatic, traditionally a church-held one, say the Aristotolian model of geocentricity, proving it "wrong" occurs in revolutions, whereas provisional scientific concepts, such as Newtons model, are not so much proved wrong as augmented... the model is improved upon, as is the case with relativity, or indeed Darwins evolution meeting the work of Francis and Crick in the field of genetics  . Again this is demonstrative of the provisional nature of scientific fact, meaning it omits the need for faith completely (though faith in empiricism/rationalism is a different matter but irrelevant here).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
the_ceebs
|
|
quote:
Actually, this reminds me of a quote from a book I've read recently: |
If you want a solid grounding in how scientific ideas change over time try reading 'Against Method' by Paul Feyerabend
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2005 19:11
. And it's lucky to have that half.
|