Maybe we are blinded by the brightness of a passing dying star. Science is new and as everything new it consumes most of our time and efforts. I guess some 100 years from now humanity will remember this science days as we remember now the day when America was discovered. Something new and vast for the time but with very clear limits and bounded at present times.
I think we now suffer from a perspective that makes us exagerate the goodness of science.
What do you think?
I think that is a complete load.
1) Science is not new
2) How many people do you know for whom science 'consumes most of their time and effort'?
3) You cannot compare a process with a single event - it makes no sense.
4) Just who is exaggerating the 'goodness of science'?
5) If you want to know how and why things are as they are, to develop new things, to make accurate predictions & statements about perceived reality, then science is the only game in town, and it is likely to remain so.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
Maybe we are blinded by the brightness of a passing dying star. Science is new and as everything new it consumes most of our time and efforts. I guess some 100 years from now humanity will remember this science days as we remember now the day when America was discovered. Something new and vast for the time but with very clear limits and bounded at present times.
I think we now suffer from a perspective that makes us exagerate the goodness of science.
What do you think? |
Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding through rigorous methods and expirimentation. Until humans stop pursuing knowledge and understanding through these methods, science will not die.
Science has been continuously attempting to understand the world since the days of the Ancient Greeks, and possibly even futher back. The pursuit has not even been stopped by the dark ages - scientists and thinkers still attempted to discover new things even in an oppresive anti-intellectual environment (Copernicus, for example). Advancement can only be hindered in our species, and unless we start evolving into a dysgenic nightmare it is not likely that, even if all of society were to fall apart, that we wouldn't try and come back up to this level of understanding.There is one most evil thing that is happening in our world:
Science progresses too fast for the average Joe. Consequently, this makes science look like religion, mysticism etc.
It's just that the average Joe doesnt see the difference between the gospel of the Lord and the word of Einstein. Both offer something that he doesnt understand, yet everyone around him assures him that it works. So thats why, in my opinion, people do not respect science and use alternative medicine and crap like that.
| c'tair wrote: |
There is one most evil thing that is happening in our world:
Science progresses too fast for the average Joe. Consequently, this makes science look like religion, mysticism etc.
It's just that the average Joe doesnt see the difference between the gospel of the Lord and the word of Einstein. Both offer something that he doesnt understand, yet everyone around him assures him that it works. So thats why, in my opinion, people do not respect science and use alternative medicine and crap like that. |
I understand what you are saying and there is some truth in this. Science has progressed (many decades ago) to the point where no single man/woman can be an expert in 'science'. In the days of Newton, Galileo etc then it was possible for one person to know pretty much everything happening in science. Nowadays a scientist cannot even know everything that is happening in their subject, so we have to split subjects down into more and more specialised fields. Thus we don't just have 'physics', we have 'theoretical particle physics' or 'experimental quantum physics' etc.
There is always a 'lag' between theory and public understanding/acceptance of such theory. The 'average' person, for example, doesn't really know any relativity or quantum physics - the two foundations of modern physics. There again, the 'average' person doesn't even know the basic Newtonian laws of motion - and they have been around for centuries.
There is no easy answer. As an educator I am in favour of much more compulsory science education (even if that has to be at the expense of other subjects). We should regard a basic grounding in science as every bit as important as basic literacy and numeracy.
There is one thing which would improve the situation and which I (and a number of colleagues) have been pushing for years. What we need in schools is a compulsory course - I call it defensive thinking, others call it baloney detection. It would comprise - introductory critical thinking
- introduction to the scientific method
- introduction to everyday stats and how they are abused
- introduction to common fallacies and examples of their use.
- basic media studies (focussing on analysing news and documentary output)
- basic research techniques
(there are a lot of 'optional extras' that could be bolted-on to this foundation.)
The idea of the course would be to give the student a grounding in how to detect bullshit, what makes things believable, how to check claims properly. Imagine it as an intellectual survival course..Well as a student, and same with all those hard working students out there, I'm forced to learn the basics, and sometimes the more 'advanced'. I'm willing to learn (I've chosen to learn physics this upcoming year) what I can and hope for the best to make a difference.
The average Joe should take the time to learn what he doesn't know, but only if it'll help his life. If it wasn't for science, there wouldn't be medicine, hospitals, etc. and nothing to help save human lives, although it can be a bit pointless seeing as we all die eventually.
| Quote: |
1) Science is not new
2) How many people do you know for whom science 'consumes most of their time and effort'?
3) You cannot compare a process with a single event - it makes no sense.
4) Just who is exaggerating the 'goodness of science'?
5) If you want to know how and why things are as they are, to develop new things, to make accurate predictions & statements about perceived reality, then science is the only game in town, and it is likely to remain so.
|
1. I'd just like to point out how correct he is. Science/technology was born when a caveman used the bones of an animal for tools. I'm not an expert at history, but I believe it was a few thousand years deep within the B.C.
2. Well it's a good thing that so many people are addicted to science. If it wasn't for such people, we wouldn't have the technology we have today.
3. True.
4. Well Albert Einstein for one, but as I said in number 2, it's a good thing.
5. Here's where the problem comes in. With the stubborness of religious people, that statement can never come true. They simply cannot realize that religion has been 'shamed' by science and will always be that way, or at least until God comes down from Heaven (which, I might add, we have went into space and somehow passed by it without seeing it) and punishes those who study science. But if and when that happens, science dominates just about everything. And if it wasn't for science, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Edit:
I have to agree with Bikerman on his comment above this. If you can teach people at a young enough age, they will have a higher chance to get ahead in life, a higher chance to be educated correctly, and a higher chance to protect their education.
Although doing such a thing is 'cheating', I see it as a necessary step to bring out the new scientists and have opportunities for better human life (and animal life) for the future. no its not almost everything uses science and we have to use it and have it.
Bikerman, perhaps Youve heard of the internation baccalaurate diploma program and stuff associated with it? It has something like Theory of Knowledge, which does teach about the fallacies and other life bullshit, I find it quite interesting, but I see that the people around see it as totally useless. "When will I ever have to be able to tell a fallacy?" They ask... So I presume that most people think alike. They just don't see the need of these things.
They rather bask in the social, mass culture, the only culture (counter culture, all that grunge, antisocial, environmental, feminist are part of the mass culture, that's what's really sad). They do not live in a world of physics, gravity, particles, compunds, systems... They live in a world of hours at work, TV at home, beer and pizza at a pub, (which doesnt require specialist knowledge, only that they trade their time for money, and the money for luxury goods) and others add to that the "revolutionary" things like Zen, Yoga, Simple Life, Organic Foods... God, the crap, the corruption, the falsity of it all. And again, there is no place for science in this. There is no place for critique in this, no place for critical thinking...
This is not happy-world, in my eyes. And presently, it's a big problem in my eyes, because the problems of world hunger and ecological collapse (not too certain about the last one) are related to that one.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
Maybe we are blinded by the brightness of a passing dying star. Science is new and as everything new it consumes most of our time and efforts. I guess some 100 years from now humanity will remember this science days as we remember now the day when America was discovered. Something new and vast for the time but with very clear limits and bounded at present times.
I think we now suffer from a perspective that makes us exagerate the goodness of science.
What do you think? |
Depends on what your definition of science is. Have you read Chris's sticky on top of this forum about what science is? Perhaps you are confusing science for something else? Such as perhaps technological progress? Chris has put it very simple for every one to understand so it is a sticky well worth reading.Science is not a dying activity, we need science to help get new technology!
| ptolomeo wrote: |
Maybe we are blinded by the brightness of a passing dying star. Science is new and as everything new it consumes most of our time and efforts. I guess some 100 years from now humanity will remember this science days as we remember now the day when America was discovered. Something new and vast for the time but with very clear limits and bounded at present times.
I think we now suffer from a perspective that makes us exagerate the goodness of science.
What do you think? |
yeah, i reckon there is already so much discovered, but still many unanswered questions like "why are we here?". however, science is still so much more useful that 'english', i cant believe we have to study 'english' at school, it is so pointless learning about Shakespeare, who does not teach us anything. How can anyone say that science is dead? In the last eighty years physics was shaken to its core by the development of quantum mechanics and is about to be upended again by string theory. Then Watson and Crick determined that DNA is the genetic material for all life. We now have laptop computers, microwave ovens and cell phones. As long as Humans are curious Science will be alive.
The great thing about the scientific process is that it is self-feeding, much like fire. The scientific process answers questions, but, at the same time, it creates more questions, which then must be addressed, generating new questions....
With all that we have learned through science, the biggest achievement we've made is realizing that we don't know anything and we've barely scratched the surface of how the universe works. Science isn't going anywhere any time soon.
I definitely agree with Bikerman that our school systems need a compulsory course in critical thinking. Logic and analytical thinking are far too lacking in modern society; actually getting people to absorb the material, however could be quite difficult. We're, for whatever reason, happy in our ignorance and changing that is a major hurtle for all educators.
| Bikerman wrote: |
There is one thing which would improve the situation and which I (and a number of colleagues) have been pushing for years. What we need in schools is a compulsory course - I call it defensive thinking, others call it baloney detection. It would comprise - introductory critical thinking
- introduction to the scientific method
- introduction to everyday stats and how they are abused
- introduction to common fallacies and examples of their use.
- basic media studies (focussing on analysing news and documentary output)
- basic research techniques
(there are a lot of 'optional extras' that could be bolted-on to this foundation.)
The idea of the course would be to give the student a grounding in how to detect bullshit, what makes things believable, how to check claims properly. Imagine it as an intellectual survival course.. |
Until recently this compulsory course existed in the Dutch high schools. It was called ANW which translates to General Natural Sciences - and it sucked. I had it in my two final high school years. The students with science subjects knew everything already, were bored and felt they were treated like ignorant fools. The other students with cultural/economical subjects weren't interested, thought it was being stuffed down their throat, and were angry that the science students hardly had to study for tests. Since 2007 it is no longer generally compulsory and most schools have abandoned it.
As for the contents of the subject, they match the points you specified quite well. Induction and deduction, information analysis, evolution vs creationism, the space race in its cultural context, that sort of things. To demonstrate principles of probability and statistics we had to sort pieces of confetti.
If it weren't for the fun I had in my chemistry classes this ANW would've made me loathe science and choose a totally different direction. Nearly everyone in my graduation class noted ANW as one of the worst subjects they had during high school, it was a frequent topic of complaints during lunch.
Last edited by Arnie on Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:03 am; edited 2 times in total | Bikerman wrote: |
There is one thing which would improve the situation and which I (and a number of colleagues) have been pushing for years. What we need in schools is a compulsory course - I call it defensive thinking, others call it baloney detection. It would comprise
introductory critical thinking
introduction to the scientific method
introduction to everyday stats and how they are abused
introduction to common fallacies and examples of their use.
basic media studies (focussing on analysing news and documentary output)
basic research techniques
(there are a lot of 'optional extras' that could be bolted-on to this foundation.)
The idea of the course would be to give the student a grounding in how to detect bullshit, what makes things believable, how to check claims properly. Imagine it as an intellectual survival course.. |
The thing that gets me is how science seems to be treated like a religion in itself. The scientific method occasionally goes out of the window, and people defend a "theory".
For instance, say someone said "I don't believe in evolution". How inclined would most people be to listen to the argument that "God did it"? There is evidence to support creationism, just as there is evidence of evolution, but it never turns into a well-reasoned debate.
You get something along the lines of "Modern thinking says that evolution is correct, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong". That isn't applying the scientific method. That's called having a belief.
Show me evidence of a Big Bang. There isn't any. Show me evidence of a God. There isn't any. Yet if I were to say "God created the Universe", I'd get called up on a lack of evidence, and how scientists believe in a Big Bang.
Read that last sentence again. "scientists believe in a Big Bang".
Science is a method of thinking. At the point where other views are dismissed because they don't match the currently accepted theory du-jour, then you've moved into a faith system.
One which happens to be taught in schools. | Chris65536 wrote: |
The thing that gets me is how science seems to be treated like a religion in itself. The scientific method occasionally goes out of the window, and people defend a "theory".
For instance, say someone said "I don't believe in evolution". How inclined would most people be to listen to the argument that "God did it"? There is evidence to support creationism, just as there is evidence of evolution, but it never turns into a well-reasoned debate. |
No, there isn't. No evidence at all. There is fabrication, misrepresentation and downright lying.
It's important that you understand here, and important that I'm clear, so let me say this in unequivocal terms.
There is not one whit of evidence to support creationism. Nothing, nada, zilch, zero.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is complete bollox.
I think that is clear.
| Quote: |
| You get something along the lines of "Modern thinking says that evolution is correct, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong". That isn't applying the scientific method. That's called having a belief. |
No - you get people saying evolution has multiple strands of evidence which means it is really solid and then you get people saying 'creationism is true because I say so'. | Quote: |
| Show me evidence of a Big Bang. There isn't any. Show me evidence of a God. There isn't any. Yet if I were to say "God created the Universe", I'd get called up on a lack of evidence, and how scientists believe in a Big Bang. |
Do you really think you are able to understand the evidence? If I talk in depth about redshift observations and general relativity then do you think you will understand it? If so I'm willing to try.
| Quote: |
| Science is a method of thinking. At the point where other views are dismissed because they don't match the currently accepted theory du-jour, then you've moved into a faith system. |
You don't really understand what you are talking about. Let me suggest that you read the sticky on the scientific method in the science forum.lol, first off I wasn't saying "I believe in creationism". I was using it as a counter-point.
I really could get into this debate with you, but we'd end up going waaay off topic. I do know about red-shift and all that stuff. I'm going to University to do a degree in science (computer science, but I still need an A-level in physics)
But if anything, that backed up my point: you immediently jumped to the conclusion of "crazy creationists, always being wrong on this".
| Quote: |
| No, there isn't. No evidence at all. There is fabrication, misrepresentation and downright lying. |
I said I have evidence, and I do. But consider the harshness of that reply. Downright lying? I've not even made a point yet!
You immediently leapt to the defence of the "evolution" viewpoint, and most of your counter arguments were slurs on me: | Quote: |
| Do you really think you are able to understand the evidence? If I talk in depth about redshift observations and general relativity then do you think you will understand it? |
No offence, but the implication there is that I'm an idiot.
| Quote: |
| You don't really understand what you are talking about. |
Again, I'm an idiot. That hardly seems like application of the scientific method.
This was exactly the thing I meant. Sometimes, "scientists" jump to defend a point without considering what their argument consists of. Your argument is based around the fact that I don't know anything about science. Not on what evidence you have to support your viewpoint not (although I'm aware that I didn't provide any) evidence to show why I'm wrong, just the general gist that I'm not in possession of enough facts to make that sort of statement.
If you want a proper debate on the whole creationism/science thing, you can PM me. But I was actually talking about the lack of scientific thinking, which is the topic of this thread 
| Chris65536 wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, there isn't. No evidence at all. There is fabrication, misrepresentation and downright lying. |
I said I have evidence, and I do. But consider the harshness of that reply. Downright lying? I've not even made a point yet! |
Did I say that YOU were lying? Did I even remotely suggest it? I said that there is lying - if you doubt that then all you have to do is a quick google on creationism.
| Quote: |
You immediently leapt to the defence of the "evolution" viewpoint, and most of your counter arguments were slurs on me: | Quote: | | Do you really think you are able to understand the evidence? If I talk in depth about redshift observations and general relativity then do you think you will understand it? |
No offence, but the implication there is that I'm an idiot. |
Not at all. Most people are not comfortable talking about those topics - why should they be? If you are then I'm perfectly willing to discuss them, but I don't wish to waste time trying to explain basic concepts in General Relativity to someone with no exposure to basic maths - it is not possible.
If you had included my entire comment, instead of editing out the end, you would have read 'if so I'm willing to try'.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | You don't really understand what you are talking about. |
Again, I'm an idiot. That hardly seems like application of the scientific method. |
Well, I'm sorry if you are offended but the comment stands. You seem to think that science depends on faith - it doesn't. Provide the evidence, have it peer-reviewed, and you have a valid theory.
| Quote: |
| This was exactly the thing I meant. Sometimes, "scientists" jump to defend a point without considering what their argument consists of. Your argument is based around the fact that I don't know anything about science. Not on what evidence you have to support your viewpoint not (although I'm aware that I didn't provide any) evidence to show why I'm wrong, just the general gist that I'm not in possession of enough facts to make that sort of statement. |
I made no personal comments at all. I simply pointed out that you seem not to understand how science functions - a comment I stand by. As you acknowledge you have produced no evidence. If you read through the science and philosophy forums you will see the 'creationist standpoint' repeatedly put forward with all the attendant dishonesty, fabrication and misinformation that supporters generally muster in defence. You will also see a complete rebuttal, point by point - by me and others.
I made no accusations of dishonesty against you personally - read what I wrote, not what you think I meant. If you have evidence then present it and we will discuss it, otherwise this is just verbiage.See: that was an argument. And I accept that my argument was flawed. They can't all be winners 
The point I was aiming for, and both myself and you seem to have wandered away from, is that there is a tendancy to be closed minded about a debate. I even have a source on this, even if it does focus more on politics than science, but it still raises the topic of debate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379.
The gist of the article is that people tend to immediently discount anything that goes against what they agree with.
Consider something such as the global warming issue. Look at the arguments that are presented on the "no such thing" side. It amounts to "lalalala I'm not listening!" The following is a programme about the Global Warming debate (and I give no guarentee that it will work outside of the UK, or indefinatly. You'll have to get back to me on that): Earth: The Climate Wars: Fightback. Even with evidence staring them in the face, some scientists still don't believe in man-made global warming.
And if the people who are supposed to have an unbiased view of the facts can have a strongly-held conviction, what hope does the rest of humanity have? | Chris65536 wrote: |
See: that was an argument. And I accept that my argument was flawed. They can't all be winners
The point I was aiming for, and both myself and you seem to have wandered away from, is that there is a tendancy to be closed minded about a debate. I even have a source on this, even if it does focus more on politics than science, but it still raises the topic of debate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379.
The gist of the article is that people tend to immediently discount anything that goes against what they agree with. |
That would be why science isn't based on opinion, but on rational argument. You can ignore rational arguments in a political debate, you can't in a scientific debate. If someone is trying to present a scientific paper while completely ignoring objection arguments... they simply won't get published.
| Chris65536 wrote: |
| And if the people who are supposed to have an unbiased view of the facts can have a strongly-held conviction, what hope does the rest of humanity have? |
The amount of scientists who deny human-caused global warming has been greatly exaggerated by... surprise surprise... politically motivated publications. There are objectors, sure, but they're a fairly small group. Every major scientific organization in the world agrees that it is happening.First off, I'm going tosay that my previous arguments were made at 1am in the morning. If I do that again, kindly tell me to STFU and come back in the morning, because I wrote a load of crap up there 
| Quote: |
| If someone is trying to present a scientific paper while completely ignoring objection arguments... they simply won't get published. |
The topic of this thread was not, if I'm interpreting it correctly, about the people for whom science is a line of work, but rather for the everyday person, and people who at one point would have gone on to study science but now don't.
And the reason is that science is no longer taught and presented as following the scientific method. Consider a high school science class. The following exchange is likely to take place:
TEACHER: Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.
STUDENT: How do we know that?
TEACHER: You don't need to know how we know. If it comes up in the test, that's the answer.
This is therefore the viewpoint people get of science (being their first experience of it), and it probably turns them off as unless they go onto do science at a higher level, all science is is remembering a large number of stuffy facts.
The point I was making earlier (in a really roundabout way) was that this "understanding" of science seems to follow through for some people. If they read somewhere that the moon is, in fact, made of cheese (exageration), they don't always question it. A scientist would (how do we know this; what evidence is there; they've quoted their references as "Wikipedia"), but for quite a large number of people, I don't think that they would. The "teacher" told them it was true, therefore it must be. Well, there is always going to be a problem in teaching science (or any other subject come to that). You cannot suddenly impart a whole body of complex knowledge to a pupil. You have to do it in stages, and that often involves gross simplifications (I call it 'lies for children').
Where the teacher is good (and knows their subject well) then they will make clear that this is just a working model and that the real model is much more complex. Simplified models are fine - if you want a basic picture of an atom then the standard Bohr model works for most purposes. When, however, you want to push deeper into it then you have to get into quantum physics and it gets very difficult - way beyond the abilities of the average GCSE student.
In your example I would say that the teacher was not doing a very good job. The correct answer would have been to describe how our model of the atom evolved (however briefly). Unfortunately not every physics/chemistry teacher has a good grasp of their subject and some will have to revert to the old line 'just because I say so'. It is not good teaching, but the world is not perfect.
I'm in my final GCSE year and the physics teacher is so terrible that the whole class resorts to learning that days lesson from their revision guides. If proper teacher recruitment and training were put in place, we wouldn't have this problem.
Bah, that's nothing. My GSCE science teachers (the ones mentioned above) often imparted such nuggets of information as:
The Sun is not a star (they don't know what it is, however)
The Universe consists of 9 planets (apparently Galaxies lie outside the Universe)
Sand may in fact be considered a liquid
And they wonder why pass rates are so low 
(and I'm willing to bet that someone will now tell me all those things are right )
Plus, if you did happen to understand the topic, they'd tell you to just "sit and read the textbook". Put simply: they wanted the highest number of students to pass, so if you could pass the exam they didn't really care much for you.
Which is why I did my A-levels elsewhere If you want to know how the existance of subatomary particles was discovered you should study physics or (preferably 
) chemistry after your GCSE. Or you could look it up yourself. Which of course doesn't negate that a proper science teacher should be able to answer such a question.
Funny thing is that last year I worked on a small educational booklet about the history of the atomic model, written for high schoolers. It starts at the four-element theory, then via Lavoisier and Dalton ends at Thomson/Rutherford/Chadwick. There's a little hint of quantum theory in it but we left the details out.
Unfortunately for you, it's in Dutch.
