Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[erowe1]

As you wish. But if a rigorous analysis of the philosophy of scientific knowledge interests you, you might want to take a glance at Karl Popper. Pretty cool stuff.

I have, and others. I recall reading Popper in a philosophy of science class in my undergraduate studies, which, admittedly, is a long time ago now.

 

[jmdrake]

No theory is EVER proven. The best a theory can do is be stated in a form that can be falsified but successfully resists being falsified. "All swans are white" is a falsifiable statement that successfully resisted falsification for a long time. Until a black swan was discovered. Then it was falsified.

Right. But time after time, the science education establishment pushes evolution as a fact instead of a theory, then they fall back on the "Well it's just a theory" when they get called out on it. That's dishonest and anti-science.

And here's quick proof that "scientists" try to elevate the theory of evolution to a fact.

http://www.hhmi.org/grants/professors/wessler_bio.html
"The fact that a school board would call evolution 'a theory, not a fact' is shocking proof that we're failing to communicate the revolution that is going on in our laboratories," said Wessler, a pioneer in the study of transposable elements, or "jumping genes," which are found scattered through plant and animal genomes. Researchers believe that these transposable elements—short segments of DNA previously viewed as "junk"—play a role in evolution.

It's okay to talk about the "theory" of relativity, but evolution must be treated as "fact." Why?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

That only highlights your religious devotion to her.

This is the thing about Randians. They have this absurd notion that they're not religious, that they don't appeal to faith, that they begin on some purely neutral objective ground and proceed forth with nothing but logic, reason, evidence, and objectivity. And they are completely blind to their own dogmas.

You are truly delusional if you think I'm devoted to Rand, religiously or not. But you've finally said something I can agree with -- her devoted followers are as dogmatic as any religion.

Incidentally, if you really believe that science shouldn't exclude any means of inquiry toward truth, then would you think that astrology or reading the entrails of owls has a place in science?

 

[erowe1]

You are truly delusional if you think I'm devoted to Rand, religiously or not.

At first it was just a guess, based on the religious views you've been espousing in this thread. I wouldn't have been surprised to be wrong about that. But then when it turned out that you've actually been quoting her holy books in this conversation, I couldn't help laughing at the irony of it.

Incidentally, if you really believe that science shouldn't exclude any means of inquiry toward truth, then would you think that astrology or reading the entrails of owls has a place in science?

Of course. Why should those theories be immune to scientific testing?

 

[Acala]

Right. But time after time, the science education establishment pushes evolution as a fact instead of a theory, then they fall back on the "Well it's just a theory" when they get called out on it. That's dishonest and anti-science.

And here's quick proof that "scientists" try to elevate the theory of evolution to a fact.

http://www.hhmi.org/grants/professors/wessler_bio.html
"The fact that a school board would call evolution 'a theory, not a fact' is shocking proof that we're failing to communicate the revolution that is going on in our laboratories," said Wessler, a pioneer in the study of transposable elements, or "jumping genes," which are found scattered through plant and animal genomes. Researchers believe that these transposable elements—short segments of DNA previously viewed as "junk"—play a role in evolution.

It's okay to talk about the "theory" of relativity, but evolution must be treated as "fact." Why?

As I have previously posted, the argument as to what government schools should teach is the wrong argument and does not interest me. The answer is abolish government schools.

Epistemology, on the other hand, interests me a great deal.

 

[Acala]

I have, and others. I recall reading Popper in a philosophy of science class in my undergraduate studies, which, admittedly, is a long time ago now.

I wasn't intending that as a put down, by the way. I am no expert myself. It was more intended to point a friend to something I find really interesting.

Before you can say what science should be, you need to be very clear about the nature of the end product: scientific truth. So what IS a scientific truth? I think Popper would say it is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. And the method of arriving at such a statement is by proposing such statements and then trying to falsify them. Such a statement becomes the prevailing model of scientific truth until it is overthrown by some form of falsification.

 

[Danan]

Of course. Why should those theories be immune to scientific testing?

They aren't immune to it and both have been sufficiently falsified. Just like the claim that the earth is a few thousand years old has been sufficiently falsified.

Of course you could spend all the time of a science class to talk about already falsified theories (and there are virtually indefinitely many of them). Or you could simply teach current state of the art theories, which are those that have yet to be sufficiently falsified, like evolution, quantum mechanics, etc.

 

[erowe1]

I wasn't intending that as a put down, by the way. I am no expert myself. It was more intended to point a friend to something I find really interesting.

Before you can say what science should be, you need to be very clear about the nature of the end product: scientific truth. So what IS a scientific truth? I think Popper would say it is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. And the method of arriving at such a statement is by proposing such statements and then trying to falsify them. Such a statement becomes the prevailing model of scientific truth until it is overthrown by some form of falsification.

I wouldn't accept that definition.

I don't remember enough about philosophical theories of truth. IIRC, I think I accept the correspondence theory of truth. But I don't remember if there might be some alternative with different nuances.

Any truth-claim is either falsifiable or unfalsifiable. We could assume that all true truth claims must be falsifiable. But that assumption is unfalsifiable, and therefore self-defeating. Therefore, it's at least possible that some true truth-claims are unfalsifiable. This doesn't mean that such claims are entirely without reason to be believed. Therefore, I don't think we should exclude them from our search for truth.

 

[Dr.3D]

They aren't immune to it and both have been sufficiently falsified. Just like the claim that the earth is a few thousand years old has been sufficiently falsified.

Of course you could spend all the time of a science class to talk about already falsified theories (and there are virtually indefinitely many of them). Or you could simply teach current state of the art theories, which are those that have yet to be sufficiently falsified, like evolution, quantum mechanics, etc.

How has it been falsified?

 

[Danan]

I wasn't intending that as a put down, by the way. I am no expert myself. It was more intended to point a friend to something I find really interesting.

Before you can say what science should be, you need to be very clear about the nature of the end product: scientific truth. So what IS a scientific truth? I think Popper would say it is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. And the method of arriving at such a statement is by proposing such statements and then trying to falsify them. Such a statement becomes the prevailing model of scientific truth until it is overthrown by some form of falsification.

For logical positivists knowledge is justified true belief (all of those three words are defined in a very specific way in this context). Popper's critical rationalism would say that knowledge is on the contrary unjustified untrue unbelief.

Popper would not say that truth is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. To Popper truth is objective. That is, truth is not what we percieve as true and not subjective, or dependend on thinking entities to sense it, it is "really real". He might say that "knowledge" is what you described, although I'm not sure about that.

 

[Danan]

How has it been falsified?

By a body of evidence to the contrary, from astronomical (red light shift, cosmic backround radiation, etc.), geological, anthropological, biological and many other sources.

 

[erowe1]

By a body of evidence to the contrary, from astronomical (red light shift, cosmic backround radiation, etc.), geological, anthropological, biological and many other sources.

All of those means rely on uniformitarianism. But they don't, and can't, prove the validity of uniformitarianism. Belief in a young earth entails a rejection of uniformitarianism. So it can't be falsified by those means.

 

[Dr.3D]

By a body of evidence to the contrary, from astronomical (red light shift, cosmic backround radiation, etc.), geological, anthropological, biological and many other sources.

They mean nothing. If you will watch the video starting at 28:02 you will understand.

 

[Acala]

For logical positivists knowledge is justified true belief (all of those three words are defined in a very specific way in this context). Popper's critical rationalism would say that knowledge is on the contrary unjustified untrue unbelief.

Popper would not say that truth is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. To Popper truth is objective. That is, truth is not what we percieve as true and not subjective, or dependend on thinking entities to sense it, it is "really real". He might say that "knowledge" is what you described, although I'm not sure about that.

Yes, I should have said scientific knowledge rather than truth.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I wouldn't have been surprised to be wrong about that. But then when it turned out that you've actually been quoting her holy books in this conversation, I couldn't help laughing at the irony of it.

You mistake me for someone else. I haven't been quoting her.

Of course. Why should those theories be immune to scientific testing?

You miss the point. If you believe that all means of inquiry are to be included in the search for truth, then you are implicitly assuming that they have some utility in that regard. I'd like to know why you think that astrology has any value at all in discovering the truth.

 

[erowe1]

I'd like to know why you think that astrology has any value at all in discovering the truth.

I don't. But that doesn't remove it from the discussion. Studying astrology could easily contribute to a better understanding of science, even if that study proves it invalid.

 

[Danan]

I don't. But that doesn't remove it from the discussion. Studying astrology could easily contribute to a better understanding of science, even if that study proves it invalid.

That has been done again and again and every time it has been falsified. The same is true for other theories.

Of course if you deny that the means by which we try to falsify theories are not sufficient and can ultimately never be sufficient, then we won't get very far with that approach. There is no ultimate way of "proving" anything, let alone the very act of proving itself. It just seems rational to assume that the laws that govern our universe don't change all the time and that evidence does indeed show us something about the "real reallity", the objective truth, because all our sensible evidence is consistent with that worldview.

 

[erowe1]

That has been done again and again and every time it has been falsified.

Following the line of reasoning of people who object to the bills in the OP, this kind of thing should not be discussed in science classes.

It just seems rational to assume that the laws that govern our universe don't change all the time and that evidence does indeed show us something about the "real reallity", the objective truth

I understand. But be aware that that's a religious dogma. And that science that proceeds on that basis can never prove the truthfulness of that dogma that it assumes. I'm of the opinion that science classes will do a better job of teaching science when they include discussions of the religious assumptions behind the methods used and an awareness of their own limitations. Apparently, in the mind of some, this belief would be enough to disqualify anyone from teaching science.

all our sensible evidence is consistent with that worldview.

That's just not true. And for it ever to be true, uniformitarian science will have to have completed its purpose and arrived at explanations for all things without any remaining problems to solve.

 

[Danan]

Following the line of reasoning of people who object to the bills in the OP, this kind of thing should not be discussed in science classes.

There is a difference between studying astrology in detail in a science class and in pointing out why astrology has been falsified whenever it was presented as a falsifiable theory and that most of the time it's not even scientific at all.

You can't explain all falsified theories in adequate detail as practical matter.

I understand. But be aware that that's a religious dogma. And that science that proceeds on that basis can never prove the truthfulness of that dogma that it assumes. I'm of the opinion that science classes will do a better job of teaching science when they include discussions of the religious assumptions behind the methods used and an awareness of their own limitations. Apparently, in the mind of some, this belief would be enough to disqualify anyone from teaching science.

Nobody can ever prove the truthfulness of anything, including this statement. Popper's critical rationalism doesn't claim to find truth. It tries to eliminate what likely is not true. He also never claimed that this method was falsifiable, just that it was useful.

That's just not true. And for it ever to be true, uniformitarian science will have to have completed its purpose and arrived at explanations for all things without any remaining problems to solve.

What evidence is there that the laws of physics were not in effect, or different in any point in time at any location in the known universe?

 

[UMULAS]

......