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

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

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

Not happened, made....
(from the old Bloom County Comic Strip)
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)

Not happened, made....
(from the old Bloom County Comic Strip)
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)

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! =-----

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! =-----

you seem to think that things can only be true if laymen understand them. you are wrong.

you seem to think that things can only be true if laymen understand them. you are wrong.

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/