|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
Having read the recent threads in this regard, I've got a suggestion:
The apologists for science have not put forth a really effective definition of science, where effectiveness is measured by the ability of the intended audience to understand said definition. Seems to me that a better definition of science is required. And I'll offer one. This is not my own, but seemed to have been the favorite definition of one of the three greatest scientists of all time (along with Newton and Einstein), R. P. Feynman. He said that science is how we try to keep from fooling ourselves. Do you suppose the lay public would have any problem understanding that definition? I think not. I propose that the Creationists be asked to provide an historical account of the rise of Creationism as the science they argue it to be, and show at each stage what successful efforts were made to avoid the imaginary and illusive. Most of us could offer a thumbnail sketch to show how science arose in that manner, at least to the extent of providing a primitive bibliography on the subject. If this can be done for specific sciences, it's reasonable to request that it can be done for all, including candidates like Creationism. In short, it does no good to try to educate the lay public in the fundamentals of science, in order to provide a foundation for the defense of science. One has to show that science itself is a profound aspect of daily life, such that the average person can understand and accept. We do primitive science every time we do a "reality check", and I doubt there is anyone who doesn't understand the concept of a "reality check". So next time Creationism shows up, put the argument on a basis that the Creationists cannot pretend to misunderstand, and simply request that they meet the fundamental requirement of science as I've described it. The burden then rests on their shoulders, and I think most of us would be unwilling to wait around until that requirement is met. Thus, end of story. Bill Tallman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
William D. Tallman wrote:
The apologists for science have not put forth a really effective definition of science, where effectiveness is measured by the ability of the intended audience to understand said definition. Seems to me that a better definition of science is required. And I'll offer one. Oh, I think they are able to understand the definition. What they lack is the willingness. This is not my own, but seemed to have been the favorite definition of one of the three greatest scientists of all time (along with Newton and Einstein), R. P. Feynman. He said that science is how we try to keep from fooling ourselves. Do you suppose the lay public would have any problem understanding that definition? I think not. No one is quicker than I to admire Feynman, but as I've mentioned on this group previously, the way to understanding is not through aphorism. Feynman's saying is clever, it captures a major spark of science, but it is not science itself. The problem is that although the objective of not fooling yourself is a simple enough, it's not at all clear how one goes about avoiding that. The devil is in the details. Shall I mangle Barrett-Browning? How do I fool me? Let me count the ways. So while Feynman's quick quotation is a good way to motivate scientific methods, and it's a good idea to keep it in mind (as all good scientists do), it does not suffice to explain how science works to the lay audience. I propose that the Creationists be asked to provide an historical account of the rise of Creationism as the science they argue it to be, and show at each stage what successful efforts were made to avoid the imaginary and illusive. Most of us could offer a thumbnail sketch to show how science arose in that manner, at least to the extent of providing a primitive bibliography on the subject. If this can be done for specific sciences, it's reasonable to request that it can be done for all, including candidates like Creationism. No, that's not good enough. To be a valid topic for a science class, it isn't enough to provide a history and show what you tried to do to avoid the imaginary. You have to set it in falsifiable terms and show what you tried to do to falsify it. If you don't understand falsifiability, you don't understand science. It's necessary (though probably not sufficient). Showing a thumbnail sketch of how science arose is the history of science, but it doesn't actually show the science behind evolution by natural selection. That is relevant in a science course, but it isn't enough. It ought to be required (at a sufficiently high level) to show the actual science behind evolution. Otherwise, we lack the conviction to require the creationists to show the science behind creation science. So next time Creationism shows up, put the argument on a basis that the Creationists cannot pretend to misunderstand, and simply request that they meet the fundamental requirement of science as I've described it. The burden then rests on their shoulders, and I think most of us would be unwilling to wait around until that requirement is met. Thus, end of story. If only it were that simple. In my experience, they're much better at argumentation than most others think. For my own part, I'll do what I can to make science better understood, but I will not meet them halfway and call it science. They want to put it in the science classroom, let them come to science. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
William D. Tallman wrote:
The apologists for science have not put forth a really effective definition of science, where effectiveness is measured by the ability of the intended audience to understand said definition. Seems to me that a better definition of science is required. And I'll offer one. Oh, I think they are able to understand the definition. What they lack is the willingness. This is not my own, but seemed to have been the favorite definition of one of the three greatest scientists of all time (along with Newton and Einstein), R. P. Feynman. He said that science is how we try to keep from fooling ourselves. Do you suppose the lay public would have any problem understanding that definition? I think not. No one is quicker than I to admire Feynman, but as I've mentioned on this group previously, the way to understanding is not through aphorism. Feynman's saying is clever, it captures a major spark of science, but it is not science itself. The problem is that although the objective of not fooling yourself is a simple enough, it's not at all clear how one goes about avoiding that. The devil is in the details. Shall I mangle Barrett-Browning? How do I fool me? Let me count the ways. So while Feynman's quick quotation is a good way to motivate scientific methods, and it's a good idea to keep it in mind (as all good scientists do), it does not suffice to explain how science works to the lay audience. I propose that the Creationists be asked to provide an historical account of the rise of Creationism as the science they argue it to be, and show at each stage what successful efforts were made to avoid the imaginary and illusive. Most of us could offer a thumbnail sketch to show how science arose in that manner, at least to the extent of providing a primitive bibliography on the subject. If this can be done for specific sciences, it's reasonable to request that it can be done for all, including candidates like Creationism. No, that's not good enough. To be a valid topic for a science class, it isn't enough to provide a history and show what you tried to do to avoid the imaginary. You have to set it in falsifiable terms and show what you tried to do to falsify it. If you don't understand falsifiability, you don't understand science. It's necessary (though probably not sufficient). Showing a thumbnail sketch of how science arose is the history of science, but it doesn't actually show the science behind evolution by natural selection. That is relevant in a science course, but it isn't enough. It ought to be required (at a sufficiently high level) to show the actual science behind evolution. Otherwise, we lack the conviction to require the creationists to show the science behind creation science. So next time Creationism shows up, put the argument on a basis that the Creationists cannot pretend to misunderstand, and simply request that they meet the fundamental requirement of science as I've described it. The burden then rests on their shoulders, and I think most of us would be unwilling to wait around until that requirement is met. Thus, end of story. If only it were that simple. In my experience, they're much better at argumentation than most others think. For my own part, I'll do what I can to make science better understood, but I will not meet them halfway and call it science. They want to put it in the science classroom, let them come to science. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
Not happened, made....
(from the old Bloom County Comic Strip) Clear, Dark, Steady Skies! (And considerate neighbors!!!) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
Not happened, made....
(from the old Bloom County Comic Strip) Clear, Dark, Steady Skies! (And considerate neighbors!!!) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 10:58:25 -0500, "William D. Tallman"
wrote: The apologists for science have not put forth a really effective definition of science, where effectiveness is measured by the ability of the intended audience to understand said definition. Seems to me that a better definition of science is required. And I'll offer one. There's no need, one already exists and, its great advantage over your own offering is that it has already prevailed in a courtroom. All other things being equal, the courtroom is the arena where it counts (if you don't believe it, go ahead and disagree with a court's ruling on any given issue and see which of the two opinions carries all the weight). You can read the full story in Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things," Chapter 11 ('Science Defined, Science Defended'), which also gives the brief history you ask for of Creation Science as a supposed discipline. To summarize the definition, however, there are five characteristics which distinguish science from a faith-based creation science: 1) It is guided by natural law 2) It is explanatory by reference to natural law 3) It is testable against the empirical word 4) It is falsifiable 5) It's conclusions are tentative Each of these characteristics is the polar opposite of those governing creation science, which requires a suspension of natural law, is not testable or falsifiable, and whose conclusions purport to be The Truth, now and forever. -------------- Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 10:58:25 -0500, "William D. Tallman"
wrote: The apologists for science have not put forth a really effective definition of science, where effectiveness is measured by the ability of the intended audience to understand said definition. Seems to me that a better definition of science is required. And I'll offer one. There's no need, one already exists and, its great advantage over your own offering is that it has already prevailed in a courtroom. All other things being equal, the courtroom is the arena where it counts (if you don't believe it, go ahead and disagree with a court's ruling on any given issue and see which of the two opinions carries all the weight). You can read the full story in Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things," Chapter 11 ('Science Defined, Science Defended'), which also gives the brief history you ask for of Creation Science as a supposed discipline. To summarize the definition, however, there are five characteristics which distinguish science from a faith-based creation science: 1) It is guided by natural law 2) It is explanatory by reference to natural law 3) It is testable against the empirical word 4) It is falsifiable 5) It's conclusions are tentative Each of these characteristics is the polar opposite of those governing creation science, which requires a suspension of natural law, is not testable or falsifiable, and whose conclusions purport to be The Truth, now and forever. -------------- Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
you seem to think that things can only be true if laymen understand them. you are wrong.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
you seem to think that things can only be true if laymen understand them. you are wrong.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Science and Creationism.
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:27:42 +0200, md" given to avoid spam not wrote:
you seem to think that things can only be true if laymen understand them. you are wrong. Excellent point! However, there seems to be a corollary true among advocates of scientism: Nothing a layman believes can possibly be true. Both tend to abort objective thinking, relying only on pre-conceived prejudices. Cheers, Larry G. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
John Kerry Embraces Creationism | BHZellner | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 3rd 04 04:48 AM |
A brief list of things that show pseudoscience | Vierlingj | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 14th 04 08:38 PM |
Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll! | Thad Floryan | Amateur Astronomy | 392 | April 7th 04 08:04 PM |
We Must Teach Astrology [was: Creationism Stomped] | Starry-Nite | Amateur Astronomy | 10 | April 6th 04 09:27 PM |