Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[The Free Hornet]

If you don't support the Tennessee bill, then you are not a libertarian or a scientist. Really, the most "unscientific" thing the government does is to try to force feed the public that supposedly prevailing theories on global warming (and evolution), cannot be questioned.

Who pays for the implementation and is this the correct bill you claim every libertarian and every scientist supports:

SECTION 2. By no later than the start of the 2011-2012 school term, the department of education shall notify all directors of schools of the provisions of this act. Each director shall notify all employees within the director's school system of the provisions of this act.

I'm not sure I support a bill to complete a legistative circle jerk. Thankfully, I don't work as a scientist or libertarian.

Now.... aside from the cost of the bill:

Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

So if the teacher can cloak their POV in "SCIENCE!", then they have a blank check to tell the school board - even if consisting 100% of taxpaying parents of the children - to "EFFF OFF... I'M TEACHING 'EM SCIENCE!".

What does this bill accomplish that any scientist or libertarian should be happy about? Growing up, my teachers were accountable to the principle who was accountable to the school board. I'm not trying to remove discretion/authority from the teacher, rather, the give-and-take of accountability shouldn't cut the parents out of the loop. To a degree, teachers should challenge students and this will offend parents at times. It is the administration that has to look at the net effect a teacher has. Does this bill interfere with that process?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Let's say the bills do that. And let's say you don't think intelligent design should be mentioned in any scientific context. Why should you impose that conviction of yours on others?

Because it's based upon a supernatural explanation and is therefore not a scientific theory. Apparently in some people's eyes I have mistakenly assumed that what should be taught in a science class is science, not theology.

 

[erowe1]

Because it's based upon a supernatural explanation and is therefore not a scientific theory. Apparently in some people's eyes I have mistakenly assumed that what should be taught in a science class is science, not theology.

The claim, "what should be taught in a science class is science, not theology," is itself a theological claim.

I don't agree that science should be taught without any reference to or questioning of its philosophical underpinnings. But even if you do think that, I don't see why you should require others to agree or use legislation to protect students from engaging in those questions.

 

[jmdrake]

Who pays for the implementation and is this the correct bill you claim every libertarian and every scientist supports:

If you're worried about costs then de-fund public education all together. But there is no cost to simply telling teachers "You have a right to encourage children to evaluate what they are being taught and not just accept it at face value." That's a red herring.

I'm not sure I support a bill to complete a legistative circle jerk. Thankfully, I don't work as a scientist or libertarian.

Good for you.

Now.... aside from the cost of the bill:

There isn't any from what I can see.

So if the teacher can cloak their POV in "SCIENCE!", then they have a blank check to tell the school board - even if consisting 100% of taxpaying parents of the children - to "EFFF OFF... I'M TEACHING 'EM SCIENCE!".

That's not what the bill says. That's your interpretation. If a child's textbook says "CO2 from cars is causing our planet to heat up and the polar bears to die" then I hope a teacher will tell a school board to go jump if the teacher wants to introduce an alternative viewpoint and the school board wants to block it. By the way, in Tennessee there is no requirement that school board members be parents of students in the school system. Most aren't.

What does this bill accomplish that any scientist or libertarian should be happy about? Growing up, my teachers were accountable to the principle who was accountable to the school board. I'm not trying to remove discretion/authority from the teacher, rather, the give-and-take of accountability shouldn't cut the parents out of the loop. To a degree, teachers should challenge students and this will offend parents at times. It is the administration that has to look at the net effect a teacher has. Does this bill interfere with that process?

The parents are already out of the loop.

Really, in Tennessee we have kids making it to the 5th grade unable to read words like "cat" and "dog." The last thing I'm worried about is whether some teacher tells a student man made global warming or aspects of evolution are debatable.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Indeed it does. A scientific theorem can never be proven in the same way that a mathematical theorem can. But they can be falsified, which is why no one in his right mind would insist that the weaknesses of the germ theory of disease should be taught along side the theory of the four bodily humors.

But the bills referred to in the original post are nothing more than lame attempts to introduce intelligent design into the science curriculum, where it does not belong.

So you think the weaknesses of the germ theory should not be taught? Am I understanding you correctly?

My point was that, you do not have the authority to say what is and is not science. Intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution. It just interprets the science differently. In conclusion, suggesting either evolution or intelligent design is the "correct" theory would be fallacious since neither can actually be observed, tested, or repeated.

What I really detest, however, is the idea that evolution should not be challenged in its favorited position among the government curriculum. Let's face it. The theory you happen to throw your support behind is a child of government-run indoctrination and continued brain-washing by the media when the kids exit school.

 

[jmdrake]

So you think the weaknesses of the germ theory should not be taught? Am I understanding you correctly?

My point was that, you do not have the authority to say what is and is not science. Intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution. It just interprets the science differently. In conclusion, suggesting either evolution or intelligent design is the "correct" theory would be fallacious since neither can actually be observed, tested, or repeated.

What I really detest, however, is the idea that evolution should not be challenged in its favorited position among the government curriculum. Let's face it. The theory you happen to throw your support behind is a child of government-run indoctrination and continued brain-washing by the media when the kids exit school.

I guess this Lancet article couldn't be discussed in certain schools.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(68)91425-6/abstract
Abstract

The germ theory of disease—infectious disease is primarily caused by transmission of an organism from one host to another—is a gross oversimplification. It accords with the basic facts that infection without an organism is impossible and that transmissible organisms can cause disease; but it does not explain the exceptions and anomalies. The germ theory has become a dogma because it neglects the many other factors which have a part to play in deciding whether the host/germ/environment complex is to lead to infection. Among these are susceptibility, genetic constitution, behaviour, and socioeconomic determinants.

 

[Tod]

It is if the differing viewpoint isn't scientific. That's why a bill that would require the teaching of astrology, phrenology, and the four bodily humors would be anti-scientific. By its very nature, creationism isn't scientific.

Assume for a moment that creationism IS IN FACT the correct explanation for the origin of the universe.

That would mean that science is inadequate for explaining the origin of the universe.

Does that mean that we should then refuse to consider other sources for explanation just because the tool we have been using to gain understanding is inadequate?

 

[erowe1]

Because it's based upon a supernatural explanation and is therefore not a scientific theory. Apparently in some people's eyes I have mistakenly assumed that what should be taught in a science class is science, not theology.

The more I think about this, the more strange it is.

Even if it were possible to divorce science from theology (which it isn't), it seems so odd that it would be desirable, and not only desirable, but mandatory.

Should science teachers also be prohibited from discussing history in their science classes, on the grounds that "what should be taught in a science class is science, not history"? Imagine prohibiting science teachers from discussing logic, math, or the philosophy of science. The idea that each subject has to be circumscribed by some definition that excludes certain topics is a terrible way to educate about any topic.

 

[James Madison]

The already debunked theory of evolution that people like you hold on to because it's in your own best interest. Of course, you still think the theory is alive and well because the media hasn't ceased to spew propaganda in favor of the theory of evolution, so your confusion is understandable.

'People like me'
'my own best interest'

First of all, saying evolution is 'debunked' over and over again does not make it so. Sorry, that isn't how science works.

And how is it 'in my own best interest?' What difference does it make? I'm here either way.

Evolution isn't 'propaganda', it's science. Creationism is propaganda; 6000-year-old Earth is propaganda. These things simply aren't true.

If you deny the basic tenants of evolution, you are denying God. It's fine to debeat the exact mechanisms of evolution or what events may have lead to which outcomes, but to flat-out deny evolution is simply, well, wrong. Copernicus's faith wasn't shaken when he formulated the heliocentric model of the solar system, nor was Galileo as he peered into the heavens of the night sky. Isaac Newton is basically the father of physics, having been the first to describe -- in detail -- the concept of gravity, calculus, how and why objects continue or cease in motion, and Optics. Yet in his lifetime he wrote more on Christian theology than he wrote on physics. He was a devout Protestant and was very interested in how Biblical prophesy related to current events. Never once was his faith shaken.

What about Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics? He was a monk and died a devout, pious man. Yet he told us that the traits we possess are not because God is some cosmic micromanager, but because the cells in our body already have the blueprint. Now, you were no longer disabled because God was punishing you; no, it was because you inherited those traits from your parents. Think that didn't ruffle a few feathers? Sure, but it never made it any less true.

The people who cannot accept the realities of this world, deny God in the most intimate way possible. Disease is clearly caused by microorganisms and not bad air/evil spirts, yet there are some who deny this. Why? That's how God created the world for His purposes; why would they deny His Glory? They question His design not out of faith but out of pride. They believe they can create a better world than God. It is man's pride, which makes himself believe he is mightier than God.

Anyways, I didn't plan for this response to ramble on so much. These things have been debated for years of RPFs and no amount of 1s and 0s on the interwebz will change your opinion. Good day, all, and best of luck in this thread. I'm out.

 

[DamianTV]

Religion and Science are at opposite ends of the same spectrum.

The problem remains that children are expected to only know what they are told, and to not question the authority in any way shape or form.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I don't agree that science should be taught without any reference to or questioning of the philosophical underpinnings that it accepts as axioms. But even if you do think that, I don't see why you should require others to agree.

Science is based on the assumption of the validity of sense experience. But I don't think the limited classroom time (especially in public schools) would be well spent in discussing whether our experimental observations are valid or whether they are something else, such as the theory that we are all brains in vats who are merely experiencing electrical impulses generated by a mad scientist somewhere.

 

[erowe1]

If you deny the basic tenants of evolution, you are denying God.

Huh?

One of the basic tenets of evolution is that the processes by which the universe came to be what it is today must have always been the same ones that we can discover empirically, that going back in time ad infinitum, nothing outside of these patterns can have happened, such that if God exists, it must be the case that he can only work through these means and no others. Miracles are axiomatically excluded.

To reject that tenet is not to deny God, it's just to permit an understanding of God that includes the possibility of his performing miracles. The moment someone accepts that any miracle has ever happened, such as that Jesus rose from the dead, they deny that basic tenet of evolution.

 

[erowe1]

Science is based on the assumption of the validity of sense experience.

Should science teachers be allowed to discuss that assumption? Or should they be required by law to proceed on the basis of it without ever talking about it?

Do you really think students will understand science better if they are sheltered from critical thought about the assumptions behind the science they study?

N.b. the assumption of the validity of sense experience is a theological one.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

So you think the weaknesses of the germ theory should not be taught? Am I understanding you correctly?

No, you aren't.

Intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution.

Nonsense. One relies upon a supernatural explanation; the other doesn't.

In conclusion, suggesting either evolution or intelligent design is the "correct" theory would be fallacious since neither can actually be observed, tested, or repeated.

Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?

 

[erowe1]

Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?

I wouldn't support a school board having a policy that prohibits science teachers from talking about the theory that the world was populated by space aliens. In fact, if I were as confident in the theory of evolution as you are, I would think that a lot of teachers could use that kind of discussion to help their students understand evolution better and shouldn't have their hands tied.

 

[The Free Hornet]

If you're worried about costs then de-fund public education all together.

Yes. Lead with that and end your post...

But there is no cost to simply telling teachers "You have a right to encourage children to evaluate what they are being taught and not just accept it at face value." That's a red herring.

Where I work, the mandatory notifications (e.g., minimum wage laws and many others) do not post themselves. Nor are the posters free of charge. Nor does Uncle Sam pay our printing costs or for our email server. Nor is the wall on which legal notifications reside free of cost. When we have to log attendance at safety/notification meetings, this doesn't occur on its own.

The law as written is another thing they must do, and it need not have been in your science/libertarian bill to accomplish its task (protecting teachers). The law itself should be sufficient without mandating we educate teachers about the law.

If a child's textbook says "CO2 from cars is causing our planet to heat up and the polar bears to die" then I hope a teacher will tell a school board to go jump if the teacher wants to introduce an alternative viewpoint and the school board wants to block it.

The teachers are employees who should not have the legislature defending their actions. Also, of note, this bill doesn't protect any STUDENT's right to question. It may encourage the teacher's to encourage the children, but any little Johnnie or Susie that gets out of line has zero protection from this bill. The unionized teacher - from a group that scores poorly on standardized tests compared to other disciplines - is being given a privilege (!) the student doesn't enjoy.

How about a bill that declares, "For the teaching of any 'controversial' subject, anarchy shall rule!".

Perhaps you have language from the bill that shows similar protection to students. I know asking you to research your opinion and post a link is difficult....

Really, in Tennessee we have kids making it to the 5th grade unable to read words like "cat" and "dog." The last thing I'm worried about is whether some teacher tells a student man made global warming or aspects of evolution are debatable.

Then promotion of this bill ought to be the second to last thing of which you worry about.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sonny Tufts again.

LOL @ #55. If you can't accept the truth, spread as many lies as possible.


Edit/added: I should not have said "the truth". Also, my comments pertain more to evolution/age-of-universe stuff (basic science which won't impact policy like AGW might). AGW/enviromentalism ought not be a topic in elementary level science. That is more suited to current events or social studies.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Science is based on the assumption of the validity of sense experience.

Right. Science is based on an unproven premise assumed on faith.

What is the proof of your faith?

 

[The Free Hornet]

Right. Science is based on an unproven premise assumed on faith.

What is the proof of your faith?

Sonny didn't mention faith, so why ask about it?

IMO, the best explanation of

Science is based on the assumption of the validity of sense experience.

is this:

Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. "Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident."[20] Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic, and claimed that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the "stolen concept"[21] by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses.[22] She held that perception, being physiologically determined, is incapable of error. For example, Optical illusions are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors in sight itself.[23] The validity of sense perception, therefore, is not susceptible to proof (because it is presupposed by all proof as proof is only a matter of adducing sensory evidence) nor should its validity be denied (since the conceptual tools one would have to use to do this are derived from sensory data). Perceptual error, therefore, is not possible. Rand consequently rejected epistemological skepticism, as she holds that the skeptics' claim to knowledge "undistorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Metaphysics:_objective_reality

 

[MRK]

Homeschool your kid and you won't have to worry what the government is trying to teach them.

Unfortunately homeschooling in many states is restricted to 'approved curriculums' with 'licensed professionals'.