Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[PaulConventionWV]

No, you aren't.

Okay. Care to elaborate?

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

Evolution relies upon a supernatural explanation. It must explain how life can arise from non-life, and it must explain the big bang theory. Before you say, "That's not part of evolution!" would you care to explain to me why it's still taught in schools.

None of what evolution proposes has ever been observed or tested. We cannot observe or test one animal changing into a different kind of animal, so it's not scientific. Again, before you tell me that speciation is observable, tell me how that can scientifically be extrapolate to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions.

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?

Why not indeed? The whole idea that we should limit what can be talked about in science class is a statist notion in and of itself because it precludes the freedom of the teacher from being able to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of science. If you think your science teacher isn't doing their job, find a different school or get a new teacher. Unfortunately, however, we have a state-run education system and because of that, according to you, it's okay to tell people that they can only discuss what we deem as scientific.

Besides, what you just proposed is that, if we are teaching our kids one un-scientific theory, they should be allowed to discuss ONLY that theory and no other. Does that really sound like good education to you, regardless about your beliefs on the difference between theology and science, which are actually very slim differences?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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

IMO, the best explanation of



is this:

Basically what Ayn Rand is saying is that all concepts that might interfere with the validity of the senses should be assumed to be invalid. What about the validity of her own concept of the validity of the senses? Logic fail. The fact that the senses are self-evident does not rule out the idea that we should consider other sources for what we observe in the world beside the self-evident.

 

[Origanalist]

Okay. Care to elaborate?



Evolution relies upon a supernatural explanation. It must explain how life can arise from non-life, and it must explain the big bang theory. Before you say, "That's not part of evolution!" would you care to explain to me why it's still taught in schools.

None of what evolution proposes has ever been observed or tested. We cannot observe or test one animal changing into a different kind of animal, so it's not scientific. Again, before you tell me that speciation is observable, tell me how that can scientifically be extrapolate to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions.



Why not indeed? The whole idea that we should limit what can be talked about in science class is a statist notion in and of itself because it precludes the freedom of the teacher from being able to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of science. If you think your science teacher isn't doing their job, find a different school or get a new teacher. Unfortunately, however, we have a state-run education system and because of that, according to you, it's okay to tell people that they can only discuss what we deem as scientific.

Besides, what you just proposed is that, if we are teaching our kids one un-scientific theory, they should be allowed to discuss ONLY that theory and no other. Does that really sound like good education to you, regardless about your beliefs on the difference between theology and science, which are actually very slim differences?

It's posts like this that make me wish I could turbo rep...........

BUT THAT'S NOT SCIENCE!!!!

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Good thing you have the authority to say what is.....






What a bunch of gibberish.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The word repeated doesn't have any deeper meaning to me, I'm sorry if I don't get why you bolded that word.

Also, I'm not assuming any authority. I'm not the one arguing that my viewpoint should be mandatory in schools.

 

[jmdrake]

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

So now you want to tell me how to post? Sorry but I'm not interested in your advice.

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 in question had no mandatory notification and there are many laws that require no mandatory notification. Sorry but your argument has no merit.

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.

Ummmm...okay. You just undermined your own argument, but okay.

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.

That's life. Students don't get pensions either. Non argument.

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

Draft one and send it to your legislature.

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....

But you making a silly comment isn't difficult at all.

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

I'm not the one who posted the OP. That said I support a law that encourages teachers to encourage students to think critically. Maybe you prefer a world where school boards (excuse me "mythical school boards run by parents") dictate that all children must learn that their farts cause global warming because somehow having a law on the books that teachers can actually allow children to question that will cost you? Fine. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I had shared a paper that a couple of people scribbled up and submitted to Icarus scientific journal. Basically they make a point for intelligent design. The actual paper is there with a snippet from the article. Was pretty interesting. I just didn't have a place to share it that was actually relevant so I stuck it in that thread since it had already contained spew regarding Panspermia

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397211-NASA-Scientist-(Creationist)-on-life-on-Mars

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Unfortunately observation, testing, and repeatability are insufficient to determine the correctness of a scientific theory.

Newtonian physics taught in high schools as fact is merely an incorrect approximation for reality that meets, in many (but not all) practical situations, the above three criteria. Does that mean that it shouldn't be taught at all or does it mean that it should be taught with context?

You just proved my point by saying that science cannot support evolution. It can, however, support Newtonian physics. The fact that it is not perfect does not eliminate the difference between its ability to support an observable, testable, repeatable phenomenon and a supposedly historical one that cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You are correct. Science is meant to be questionable. It HAS to be. Thats why it changes, every day. The theory of evolution has been corrected many times, and will be many more. THe same is true of continental drift; 1st rejected due to lack of evidence, then accepted as more came to light. Creationism and intelligent design, however, have also been questioned, but have been found to be unsupported by evidence..

So you are saying that, since it has ALREADY been questioned, that it can no longer be questioned? I dunno, some people held some crazy beliefs for a PRETTY long time.

What you said is simply foolish. To say that something can no longer be questioned because the scientific elite have already determined the answer for us is to contradict yourself when you say that everything should be questionable... AT ALL TIMES. At NO point does a theory suddenly become unquestionable. The fact that we have been bombarded with propaganda in support of evolution does not change the fact that we should be allowed to question it. In fact, it only enhances it. Basically, what you are saying is that the kids of the future can't question evolution because they're late to the game. So, in your view, that justifies indoctrinating them with evolution.

Also, I don't think evolution has been questioned nearly as much as you think it has. It is still a favored theory that nobody wants to touch because it goes against the conventional wisdom. THE SCIENCE GODS HAVE SPOKEN!

Let's not question their motivations for publishing lies in the textbooks about human gill slits and hoaxes like The Piltdown Man that were used to support evolution.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are you aware that the founder of the weather channel wanted to sue Al Gore for fraud over Gore's global warming claims? Do you think the founder of the weather channel is not "scientifically literate?"

Yes. I am aware. It's the same exact video you retrieved the last time you needed a counterpoint. And that guy is a business man. I think we look at change in the Earth differently. You're leaning toward the news narrative whereas I'm content to let them spin themselves into the circle while the genuine changes in the cosmos that are affecting the planet are actually studied. Two totally different discussions. I loathe the one you bring up. It's spin. Basically irrelevant.

Of course, I still don't condone the infrastructure that your business man espouses. Doesn't help things.

We want to approach the discussion in the classroom from the perspective of the physics of the universe. That's the correct model. Not what red eye guy and the oil guy want us to lie to them about. These are social conservatives practicing political science. Is far removed from the genuine stuff.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes. I am aware. It's the same exact video you rerieved the last time you needed a counterpoint. And that guy is a business man. I think we look at change in the Earth differently. You're leaning toward the news narrative whereas I'm content to let them spin themselves into the circle while the genuine changes in the cosmos that are affecting the planet are actually studied. Two totally different discussions. I loathe the one you bring up. It's spin. Basically irrelevant.

Of course, I still don't condone the infrastructure that your business man espouses. Doesn't help things.

If you think the person in the video is "just a businessman" then your scientific inquiry skills are sorely lacking. And I see you don't even want to address that the fake science pushing global warming was once pushing global cooling and have now jumped on the ubiquitous "climate change" argument. And there are thousands of scientists who have denounced the UN climate change report and we all know about the "hide the decline" emails. I loathe that you ignore science that doesn't fit your worldview but still try to call your worldview "science." It isn't. True science welcomes debate. It doesn't try to pretend the other side doesn't exist or is just "media spin" or whatever it is you are trying to say.

 

[jmdrake]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?'
Marc Sheppard
The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself.

On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question:

"How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"


How many, indeed?

Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."


How might anyone of clear mind consider these words from these numbers and still accept claims of scientific consensus? Or calls for any -- let alone immediate -- action?

Solomon also points out that these dissenting scientists - over 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds -- now outnumber the environmentalists that attended the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that actually kicked off the global warming craze. And, I might add, far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists" whose calamitous predictions lie at the very heart of climate hysteria and what Solomon calls "the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science."

But will their sheer numbers nullify the "settled science" argument?

Not if the alarmists have any say it won't. Solomon offers a brief history of attempts to bury all such previous accords. First by mocking the limited number of signatures on earlier appeals, and then -- when the original Oregon petition boasted 17,800 signatories -- claiming duplicate or fraudulent names. And even when all names were ultimately verified as authentic (save one actually planted by agents of Greenpeace), the MSM still ignored their consequence.

Sixteen years ago, the Rio event attracted over 7,000 journalists who dutifully spread the word of man's inhumanity to his habitat to an appreciative world. Will today's official announcement of 32,000 men and women of science who, by their physical signature, reject mankind's guilt capture any media attention at all?

Or, for that matter, that of climate experts Gore, Boxer, Lieberman, Warner, Clinton, Obama, or, most despicably -- McCain?

As the science no longer appears to concern any of them -- don't hold your CO2 polluted breath.

Yet their denials change nothing - the wheels continue to fall off the warmist dungwagon.

 

[jmdrake]

Natural Citizen, here's a pure "science" lecture for you.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What he's pointing out is a transparent paradigm between political lemmings who abuse the sciences for gain. It's a valid argument. I'm not saying that it isn't.

 

[Danan]

Evolution relies upon a supernatural explanation. It must explain how life can arise from non-life, and it must explain the big bang theory. Before you say, "That's not part of evolution!" would you care to explain to me why it's still taught in schools.

That's not part of evolution. I doubt that any school teaches that the big bang is part of evolution. So there is that.

Why must evolution, the theory of how life-forms are adopting over generations, explain how life came about initially? That's like saying electro-magnetism can't be right until you can explain quantum mechanics.

None of what evolution proposes has ever been observed or tested. We cannot observe or test one animal changing into a different kind of animal, so it's not scientific. Again, before you tell me that speciation is observable, tell me how that can scientifically be extrapolate to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions.

On the contrary it can and has been observed and reproduced. Of course nobody took a paramecium and made a giraffe out of it, but if that's the level of certainty you need in order to accept the theory, than it's virtually unprovable to you. Most people would and do accept the huge body of evidence as a sign that evolution seems to explain the transformation of life-forms on this planet.

Why not indeed? The whole idea that we should limit what can be talked about in science class is a statist notion in and of itself because it precludes the freedom of the teacher from being able to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of science.

Why does it sound like a bad idea to limit the content of science classes to actual science? I mean, I'd have no problem with explaining the philosophical underpinnings of natural science per se at one point. In fact I believe that's a good idea. But to insist to teach non-scientific theories alongside scientific theories in science classes doesn't seem very sensible.

Natural science is "knowledge" aquired by a very specific method. You can argue about the epistemology of science in a philosophy class, but ID is not using the scientific method (and when some people try their results are routinely falsified, yet they continue to hold those beliefs) and can therefore not called a science.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And I see you don't even want to address that the fake science pushing global warming was once pushing global cooling and have now jumped on the ubiquitous "climate change" argument.

Everyone already knows all of that stuff, jmdrake. I just don't care to harp on it. This is what happens when business men pay for the scientific narrative.

The argument itself isn't practical for that reason alone. It's loaded. And it's loaded in the direction of those I had referenced who would latch onto it and negate themselves from the democratic process. Again, this is political science.

If you're curious about genuine Earth changes then perhaps you should look to the stars for those answers. That's where they are. That's where the relevant discussion is premised. And it's way more fun. You're going to give yourself grey hair running around the politial circle, jmdrake.

 

[Origanalist]

Everyone already knows all of that stuff, jmdrake. I just don't care to harp on it. This is what happens when business men pay for the scientific narrative.

The argument itself isn't practical for that reason alone. It's loaded. And it's loaded in the direction of those I had referenced who would latch onto it and negate themselves from the democratic process.

Your original post got my attention, but I'm a bit (looking for the word) confused? by what you mean by "the democratic process".

 

[Danan]

And I see you don't even want to address that the fake science pushing global warming was once pushing global cooling and have now jumped on the ubiquitous "climate change" argument.

So your point is that with new evidence new theories were developed that now predict a new outcome, while some people still believe the earth is a few thousand years old although there are huge amounts of evidence to the contrary?

That being said, climatology is clearly not working as it's supposed to work today, because of huge governmental influence. However, the modelling itself is not even that bad, given how awfully difficult it is to predict the climate (which is a very chaotic system). The policy reccomendations that come from that modelling and the level of trust politicians (and many political "scientists") put into those predictions are laughable. What should be done is to research further until the predictions are correct on a consistent basis until we even start to talk about policies. And then I will oppose any policy regardless.

 

[jmdrake]

Everyone already knows all of that stuff, jmdrake. I just don't care to harp on it. This is what happens when business men pay for the scientific narrative.

The "scientific narrative" that's been bought and paid for is the one you are following with regards to global warming.

The argument itself isn't practical for that reason alone. It's loaded. And it's loaded in the direction of those I had referenced who would latch onto it and negate themselves from the democratic process. Again, this is political science.

If you're curious about genuine Earth changes then perhaps you should look to the stars for those answers. That's where they are. That's where the relevant discussion is premised. And it's way more fun. You're going to give yourself grey hair running around the politial circle, jmdrake.

Oh I fully agree that the sun (which is a star in case you didn't know) causes climate change. Glad you finally realized that! And I'm not getting grey hairs over this. After all you're the one that posted the OP.

 

[jmdrake]

So your point is that with new evidence new theories were developed that now predict a new outcome, while some people still believe the earth is a few thousand years old although there are huge amounts of evidence to the contrary?

My point is that people should be free to question everything...including whether the earth is warming or cooling or billions of years old. If you fully believe the evidence is on your side, then the questioning shouldn't bother you and the "anti science" bills shouldn't be seen as "anti science."

That being said, climatology is clearly not working as it's supposed to work today, because of huge governmental influence. However, the modelling itself is not even that bad, given how awfully difficult it is to predict the climate (which is a very chaotic system). The policy reccomendations that come from that modelling and the level of trust politicians (and many political "scientists") put into those predictions are laughable. What should be done is to research further until the predictions are correct on a consistent basis until we even start to talk about policies. And then I will oppose any policy regardless.

When data is purposefully hidden to the point that you can't even get it with a freedom of information act, that by definition is "bad modelling." I'm sure there is a lot of good climate science out that. The science that claims there is "unquestioned consensus" on what's going on is clearly junk science.

 

[jmdrake]

What he's pointing out is a transparent paradigm between political lemmings who abuse the sciences for gain. It's a valid argument. I'm not saying that it isn't.

Glad you agree. Some of those "political lemmings" have influence on what goes into "science" textbooks. An astute teacher should be able to read such a textbook, determine that it is bollocks, and then show the video explaining the dishonest that went into "hide the decline" with regards to global warming to his/her class, and then say "Make up your own mind whether or not CO2 from cars and industry is causing global warming."