Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Teachers must explain theory of evolution


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#61    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,560 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:51 PM

Science is about observation and experimentation.  At one time it was thought the sun went round the earth but through observation and experimentation it was found to be other way around. Science can change over time as new observations come to light, but they must go through scientific method so they can be shown to be true. This is not dogma.  

Religion is about faith without observation. As long as it is written down it doesn't change, even if other ideas come to light. That is dogma. Religion has no place in a science class.  

Sorry, but God is not observable so it is not science, evolution is, so it is science.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie

#62    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:57 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 28 February 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

I dunno if I was so smart; I didn't ever hear of Santa Clause, but we had other similar things mainly about the equivalent of what you might call the bogeyman, and she (a woman in the Vietnamese version) was scary.  I believed until older kids set me straight: then confronted my mom and got the truth.

Teachers are something holy here; one respects them beyond measure and they get gifts and bows and all sorts of other tokens, so I just can't imagine thinking the kinds of things I read in one of the above messages about one of my teachers.  Even in college in the States, where one used "Mr." and so on to address teachers, I so often wanted to use the Vietnamese pronoun for teacher (it would probably translate something like "honorable" or "venerable,") although of course I had been instructed that this was not part of American culture.

Perhaps one of the weaknesses of Asian teaching is that children do not think for themselves.  They are to repeat verbatim what they have memorized, end of story.  Nowadays I still run into that, trying to get students to figure things out, when all they want is to be told, so they can write it down and take it home and memorize it.  I really can't imagine a situation where the parents believe one thing and the teacher teaches another.  I suppose it must happen, but the child is going to have to bury it and not argue or contradict or even question either of them.

I do not exaggerate.  Children do not question, and watching US kids on TV where they talk back to adults just amazes them.  (Of course this TV is also having its influence).  I would also say that the Vietnamese approach does not necessarily work better -- Vietnamese kids get into their share of trouble too.

Hmmm interesting. I think your mistaken if you think children question what they are taught in the west or question their teachers. Critical thinking no longer exists in any level of academia, students whether children or young adults only regurgitate the stuff their lecturers have regurgitated over the years.

If critical thinking existed, then you would find people stopping sitting, pondering and reflecting, but in today's overly materialistic and busy life styles there is no time to be critical, but there is only time to regurgitate information dogmatically input in our minds from kindergarten to universities!


#63    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 01 March 2013 - 10:32 PM

View PostDarkwind, on 01 March 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Science is about observation and experimentation.  At one time it was thought the sun went round the earth but through observation and experimentation it was found to be other way around. Science can change over time as new observations come to light, but they must go through scientific method so they can be shown to be true. This is not dogma.  

I agree with most of what you say....however science today is dogmatic, and what a scientist says is gospel! You can reject all day long but its reality, whether you like it or not!

The word science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge. A concise definition of science has been accurately stated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell,

"The attempt to discover, by means of observation and reasoning based upon it, … particular facts about the world, and the laws connecting facts with one another."

So I agree about the scientific method I also agree evolution on micro level is scientific fact (but there is a difference between scientific fact and certain knowledge, you won't understand this as your thinking is not broad enough to encompass philosophy of science)!

The limitations of the scientific process are rarely discussed. One key reason for this is that science has become a social enterprise. A social norm has developed that exclaims that science has replaced religion and is now the new gospel truth.

Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world’s most innovative biologists and writers, who is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, highlights this point in his new book The Science Delusion,

"Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century, when science and technology seem to be at the peak of their power, when their influence has spread all over the world and when their triumph seems indisputable, unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Most scientists take it for granted that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along established lines, but some, including myself, think they are symptoms of a deeper malaise…science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas."

The scientific method is limited due to: Sensory perception:

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote,

"It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observations are not really about anything—or at the very least they are not science."

What the above means in layman terms is that what can't be observed is beyond sciences scope and limitations! So questions like do we have a soul or does god exist are beyond the scope of science and its limitations (yet you'll harp on about it saying "there is no scientific proof of god or a soul" but in reality to people knowledge it only shows the deficiency is your own knowledge and capacity).

The questions " does god exist or does the soul exist" are outside the realm of the scientific method. This does not imply that such questions are meaningless, rather it exposes the limitations of the scientific process, as there are other methods that can provide answers to the above questions. However I'm not going to go into that as I believe most of what I said is beyond most of you who hold fast to empiricism or scientism! Hence why I said philosophy of science ought to be taught as it puts theories, data, science etc into perspective especially with an epistemic approach!

Quote

Religion is about faith without observation. As long as it is written down it doesn't change, even if other ideas come to light. That is dogma. Religion has no place in a science class.  

Maybe so, but what's your point! I also said religion can be dogmatic, but so is science today! You'll believe in all sorts of theories which have no empirical backing or provable via scientific method, so you believe in the science and clergy in faith, ie dogmatically!!!!

Quote

Sorry, but God is not observable so it is not science, evolution is, so it is science.

Sorry what ever is not observable is beyond the realm of science as already established. But I don't see why you're arguing that evolution is science I never said otherwise its clearly an intellectual product of science and its methodology. However what's scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.....this is where you need the philosophy but I don't want to fry your brain :)


#64    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 March 2013 - 11:13 PM

View PostLion6969, on 01 March 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

I agree with most of what you say....however science today is dogmatic, and what a scientist says is gospel!

Only to people who don't understand science.

Quote

The limitations of the scientific process are rarely discussed.

That's because these limitations are usually expressed in the form of "Science is wrong! It has to be because I know with absolute certainty that...".

Quote

The scientific method is limited due to: Sensory perception:

Yes, we only have our five senses to tell us what is true and what isn't and those senses are easily fooled.

Quote

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote,

"It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observations are not really about anything—or at the very least they are not science."

That's exactly true. We are only human.

Quote

What the above means in layman terms is that what can't be observed is beyond sciences scope and limitations! So questions like do we have a soul or does god exist are beyond the scope of science and its limitations (yet you'll harp on about it saying "there is no scientific proof of god or a soul" but in reality to people [ack?]knowledge it only shows the deficiency is your own knowledge and capacity).

However look at the alternatives. Uh, what are those again?

Quote

Sorry what ever is not observable is beyond the realm of science as already established. But I don't see why you're arguing that evolution is science I never said otherwise its clearly an intellectual product of science and its methodology. However what's scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.....this is where you need the philosophy but I don't want to fry your brain :)

You're only frying my brain with these jumbled run-on sentences.


#65    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (Freud )

Posted 01 March 2013 - 11:58 PM

View PostChloeB, on 01 March 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well I specifically responded to you because your original response about way to go Oklahoma is what a lot of people would think (and just what the people behind this bill want you to think). like hey academic freedom act!  This is awesome, open-minded exploration and all that jazz, but it's a sham.  Hopefully with the Louisiana example, I provided a glimpse of what they truly want to do and have.  Scowl's class sounds great, I'd have loved to had a class like that, but trust me, they aren't pushing these academic freedom bills (see below) all over the country to have creationism discussed and dismissed as his class did.  If you ever get a chance, check out some of those homeschooling science books made by those Christian publishers, like Abeka, Bob Jones.  That's what the Creationist teachers would probably try to start using and it's targeted at disproving evolution, and we see that so often even here, someone thinks if they disprove evolution, they've provided some evidence for Creationism, which is spiritual, and by definition, spiritual pretty much means something without evidence, but anyway I promise you it's their purpose.  I get the religious objection to human cloning, but I've still not figured out why the religious people are so against global warming, but it seems like so many are as it's singled out in the bill as well.  Maybe it's a earth is made for man to do with as he pleases and liking it too much is earth worship or something, who knows.  I think the Pope made some comments about the green movement or environmentalism being earth worship before.

Academic Freedom bills are a series of anti-evolution[citation needed] bills introduced in State legislatures in the United States beginning 2001. They purport that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.[1] Critics of the bills point out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution.[2] An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it occurred.[3]
Based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute, from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that criticize evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism.[2]


They have spent years working school boards, with only minimal success. Now critics of evolution are turning to a higher authority: state legislators.
In a bid to shape biology lessons, they are promoting what they call "academic freedom" bills that would encourage or require public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science.
—"Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools", Wall Street Journal[2]

http://en.wikipedia....c_Freedom_bills



OMG, this was a whole can of worms (the home schooler's who purposely taught creationism in place of science.) California had a big issue with this a few years ago.


Jack O'Connell ( CA superintendent of Education at the time) took the position that CA is open to the idea of different approaches to education, but we have to give our children educations that prepare them for the global economy and the reality of the world.


“I admire the dedication of parents who commit to oversee their children’s education through home schooling. But, no matter what educational program a student participates in, it is critical that the program prepares them for future success in the global economy. I urge any parent who is considering or involved in home schooling their children to take advantage of resources and support available through their county or district offices of education.”
http://justenough.wo...-homeschooling/

To graduate High School here a kid has to take 2 years of science, 3 years to get into a university.

Edited by Sherapy, 01 March 2013 - 11:59 PM.




#66    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:04 AM

Scowl your response is a clear illustration of why philosophy of science ought to be obligatory! Most of my post was clearly beyond your intellectual capacity! Your post is not even worthy of a response!


#67    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:12 AM

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote,

At any moment scientists are limited by the observations they have at hand…the limitation is that science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.

You see scowl thats from a leading evolutionist, but I bet you dont even know what it means!


#68    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:09 AM

View PostLion6969, on 01 March 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

I agree with most of what you say....however science today is dogmatic, and what a scientist says is gospel! You can reject all day long but its reality, whether you like it or not!

The word science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge. A concise definition of science has been accurately stated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell,

"The attempt to discover, by means of observation and reasoning based upon it, … particular facts about the world, and the laws connecting facts with one another."

So I agree about the scientific method I also agree evolution on micro level is scientific fact (but there is a difference between scientific fact and certain knowledge, you won't understand this as your thinking is not broad enough to encompass philosophy of science)!

The limitations of the scientific process are rarely discussed. One key reason for this is that science has become a social enterprise. A social norm has developed that exclaims that science has replaced religion and is now the new gospel truth.

Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative biologists and writers, who is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, highlights this point in his new book The Science Delusion,

"Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century, when science and technology seem to be at the peak of their power, when their influence has spread all over the world and when their triumph seems indisputable, unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Most scientists take it for granted that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along established lines, but some, including myself, think they are symptoms of a deeper malaise…science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas."

The scientific method is limited due to: Sensory perception:

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote,

"It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observations are not really about anything—or at the very least they are not science."

What the above means in layman terms is that what can't be observed is beyond sciences scope and limitations! So questions like do we have a soul or does god exist are beyond the scope of science and its limitations (yet you'll harp on about it saying "there is no scientific proof of god or a soul" but in reality to people knowledge it only shows the deficiency is your own knowledge and capacity).

The questions " does god exist or does the soul exist" are outside the realm of the scientific method. This does not imply that such questions are meaningless, rather it exposes the limitations of the scientific process, as there are other methods that can provide answers to the above questions. However I'm not going to go into that as I believe most of what I said is beyond most of you who hold fast to empiricism or scientism! Hence why I said philosophy of science ought to be taught as it puts theories, data, science etc into perspective especially with an epistemic approach!



Maybe so, but what's your point! I also said religion can be dogmatic, but so is science today! You'll believe in all sorts of theories which have no empirical backing or provable via scientific method, so you believe in the science and clergy in faith, ie dogmatically!!!!



Sorry what ever is not observable is beyond the realm of science as already established. But I don't see why you're arguing that evolution is science I never said otherwise its clearly an intellectual product of science and its methodology. However what's scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.....this is where you need the philosophy but I don't want to fry your brain :)

Classy, the cab driver who lectures about the philosophy of science and the perils and problems of academia: Who simply rips off others works as their own, lol! You know the give away is easy for anyone who has read your posts that is your original material. It's pretty easy to tell when you are copying others works.


Wunder wut dem academnicks wud say to dat, LOL!

By the way the site you copied your "astute" observations on the "philosophy of science" from is found here;

http://www.hamzatzor...-and-certainty/

What a joke.


#69    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:19 AM

Oh by the way a little more back story for you. The blog you ripped off and plagiarized was Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. After you claim that PhD  carrying scientists don't "understand the philosophy" of science you quote someone who's credentials are?.......

Ohhhh I see what he is going for with this whole "academic thing"... He just rips off William Lane Craig's "arguments" and changes Christian mythology to Islamic mythology. Classy, very academic of him.


#70    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:28 AM

View PostLion6969, on 02 March 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

Scowl your response is a clear illustration of why philosophy of science ought to be obligatory! Most of my post was clearly beyond your intellectual capacity! Your post is not even worthy of a response!

Woe is us lesser mortals who tremble in your superior intellectual capacity. You know that capacity to <left click>, <highlight text>, <right click>, <copy>, <right click>, <paste>. Like freaking brain surgery.

Clearly there were some people that went through 'western' schools and only learned to regurgitate information (apparently they did a p*** poor job of that too)--And no, it isn't Scowl.

3 Guesses to who it could be!!! Step right up and win a prize, 3 guesses!!!!


#71    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,884 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:48 AM

It appears a reminder is in order: when you use words that aren't your own you must provide a source quote.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#72    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:37 AM

I used hamzas words to illustrate the points clearly to learned of you....

However if you wish to bring it on I can easily present the same argumument in my own words.

So shall we dance?

So as said science and by the same token evolution dont provide certain knowledge. What is scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.

Using induction as a method can give percantages of certainty or truth but its always below 100%. Thus not certain knowledge!  

I have discussed many issues in the past and always quoted a source, I tried to do so, but my phone was playing up, but thats still no excuse! So apologies if you felt I was trying to decieve, your assumption would be correct if I did not know what I was talking about or understand what I presented. As a cabby on a friday night I an little tied up for time, so it was easier to use hamzas words. But if you wanna test the substance of his words or my own, then bring it on! By the way I am graduate and im a cabby by choice because I own the business in my town with 30+ cabby working for me!

The points still stand whether in my own words or hamzas,  so break em down address them and we can take it from there!

The blog may help you guys to in understanding hiw hidden metaphysical assumptions in scientific methodology dictate the bias in theories and interpretation of data!

A metaphor in relation to you is that of a donkey laden with books on ita back, it does not make it a scholar!

So regardless of hamzas or my words. The points made still stand! As you said it quite clear when its ny iwn words and when their not so lets dance Copa!

Edited by Lion6969, 02 March 2013 - 02:45 AM.


#73    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:41 AM

Plus my argument was and still is that philosophy of science ought to be taught because it stumps empiricists and atomists (which you profess to adhering to), who have hidden metaphysical assumptions which dictate your theories and bias intepretation if the data rather dogmatically!  Hence proving the point that science today is dogmatic and the scientists are the clergy!


#74    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:56 AM

View PostLion6969, on 02 March 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

I used hamzas words to illustrate the points clearly to learned of you....

However if you wish to bring it on I can easily present the same argumument in my own words.

So shall we dance?

So as said science and by the same token evolution dont provide certain knowledge. What is scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.

Using induction as a method can give percantages of certainty or truth but its always below 100%. Thus not certain knowledge!  

I have discussed many issues in the past and always quoted a source, I tried to do so, but my phone was playing up, but thats still no excuse! So apologies if you felt I was trying to decieve, your assumption would be correct if I did not know what I was talking about or understand what I presented. As a cabby on a friday night I an little tied up for time, so it was easier to use hamzas words. But if you wanna test the substance of his words or my own, then bring it on! By the way I am graduate and im a cabby by choice because I own the business in my town with 30+ cabby working for me!

The points still stand whether in my own words or hamzas,  so break em down address them and we can take it from there!

The blog may help you guys to in understanding hiw hidden metaphysical assumptions in scientific methodology dictate the bias in theories and interpretation of data!

A metaphor in relation to you is that of a donkey laden with books on ita back, it does not make it a scholar!

So regardless of hamzas or my words. The points made still stand!


So what are you trying to say here....I'm a donkey?

Got me there dude.

Convenient you were so rushed for time you just happened to slip and plagiarizer someone's work. "Ohhh, **** sorry guys my texting fingers have a mind of their own when they are browsing the internets on my smart phone. Damn"

I mean, NOT LIKE THAT"S NEVER HAPPENED WITH YOU BEFORE.... :clap:


About your only worthwhile quote that was on topic;


Quote

So I agree about the scientific method I also agree evolution on micro level is scientific fact (but there is a difference between scientific fact and certain knowledge, you won't understand this as your thinking is not broad enough to encompass philosophy of science)!

was that.

Looks like you didn't gradumuate and learn how evolution works. there is no "fact of micro evolution". Biological evolution is simply that allele frequencies change across time (generations). That is the fact of evolution. All evolution. Not "micro" or "macro", ALL EVOLUTION.

That is a fact of nature.

How those allele frequencies change is what theory explains; natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection etc.

When populations become isolated from similar populations, they become reproductively isolated. This is another fact of nature. Isolated populations undergoing changes in allele frequencies is biological evolution. When two formerly similar populations experience different changes in allele frequencies because of those theories above you have speciation. There are scientific theories which explain that too; allopatric, sympatric etc.

All of these theories are consistent, parsimonious, falsifiable, testable and useful (useful being they make predictions about our world and how it works).


Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Pretty sure we've been over this before. If you haven't gotten it by now you either;
1. choose to remain ignorant about evolution
2. need to lay off insulting others intellects, because people in glass houses ought not to throw stones.....if you follow me here, but then again if you're as glass-house-bound as I seem to be implying here you probably aren't following me. In fact your mind has probably melted through your face right now just trying to keep up! Need I spell it out then? Course that wouldn't too sporting would it?

Lets not let that all slow you down though Lion. You were just going to argue about the topic at hand in your own words without copying others.

So here it is, I'll even help you setup the framework for your argument.

You want to argue that evolution occurs in scales ("micro", "macro", etc). Then you need to put forth a hypothesis that stops changes in allele frequencies over time, such that evolution is limited to "micro" processes (by the way, while your at it define "micro" processes of evolution).

Since you're the l33t-Sci3nZor philosophizer you ought to understand how that scientific process works (you know you hypothesizing and all, then supporting your ideas with some evidence).

Edited by Copasetic, 02 March 2013 - 03:06 AM.


#75    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 March 2013 - 03:00 AM

View PostLion6969, on 02 March 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Plus my argument was and still is that philosophy of science ought to be taught because it stumps empiricists and atomists (which you profess to adhering to), who have hidden metaphysical assumptions which dictate your theories and bias intepretation if the data rather dogmatically!  Hence proving the point that science today is dogmatic and the scientists are the clergy!

You keep using words and.....

Posted Image

I'm an "atomist" now am I?


Pneumoconiosis grandiloquent  eccedentesiast catoptromancy...See what I did thar?

Edited by Copasetic, 02 March 2013 - 03:13 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users