DaveOT is right. Our coutries performance in scientific areas is terrible. I mean, I've taught people in a senior biochemistry course (as he knows) and I've seen it first hand. Its really fucking bad.

8/3/2005 2:28:14 PM

Good thing we're cutting down on Visas to foreign students.


Oh..

shit.

8/3/2005 2:56:41 PM

Quote :

"Yeah it defeats the argument at the cost of saying EVERYTHING is unscientific, which leads to even more problems. Do you even work in a scientific field?"

-Armabond1

Then please show me a definition of what is scientific so that we can have an accurate criteria for which to compare scientific to unscientfic. If you don't like the result's of DirtyGreek's argument, give me a better one.

And what do you consider a "scientific" field? Engineers are not scientists, yet you seem to think it's relevant what I do? Me thinks you're looking for mud to sling rather than arguments to make.

If you have a better argument, then make it.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ``]

8/3/2005 3:08:14 PM

since when is an engineer not a scientist?

just because they are more interested in the practical applications of science doesn't make them unscientific and not scientists.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2005 3:21:14 PM

^ I didn't say they were "unscientific" (since I don't believe in the term), I simply said they were not scientists. I define a scientist to be someone that uses empirical methods to investigate the natural world.

If we define a scientist as simply someone who applies "scientific" knowledge, then it's hard to find folks who aren't scientists. Business managers are trained in and apply behavioral psychology, economic principals, and statistics for example. Just because they are more interested in applcation doesn;t not make them scientists does it?

But this gets us far off the subject, which is what Armabond1 wanted I think.

---


Can someone please tell me what is scientific? Or even what is not?

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ``]

8/3/2005 3:41:19 PM

you people are a bunch of morons

8/3/2005 3:54:50 PM

The whole irony of the situation is you can use agrument from uncertainty to "prove" everything is falsifiabile just as easily as you can prove everything isn't.

So at the same time everything is unscientific and scientific, which is a bullshit argument which.... ahem... ADDS NOOOOOOOOO VALLUEEEEEEEEEEEEE



[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ed]

8/3/2005 3:59:38 PM

yeah, observation and testing work

that's why this piece of crap is here for me to type on

that's why I can send data to y'all

so does it really matter how any of it looks in theory?

8/3/2005 4:10:13 PM

Quote :

"The whole irony of the situation is you can use agrument from uncertainty to "prove" everything is falsifiabile just as easily as you can prove everything isn't. So at the same time everything is unscientific and scientific, which is a bullshit argument which.... ahem... ADDS NOOOOOOOOO VALLUEEEEEEEEEEEEE "

huh? prove that to me. because you lost me.
and you only think my answer has no value because you don't understand the question.
If we can't define science how can we say something is unscientific?

8/3/2005 4:25:36 PM

How about this theory?

Quote :

" What really counts are dramatic, unexpected, stunning predictions"

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.htm

8/3/2005 4:39:54 PM

The whole argument is that you can't OBSERVE God creating the world or influencing human development (currently). Nor can you form an experiment to test the hypothesis that a god does or does not exist. Thats what we mean by falsifiable. You can hypothetically create a situation in which gravity would not work according to theory, which WOULD negate that theory.

If someone can come up with an observation or experiment to test the existance of a superhuman being then people would shut up. Thats not to say that there isn't one, just that its not testable.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ed]

8/3/2005 4:43:51 PM

Quote :

"You can hypothetically create a situation in which gravity would not work according to theory, which WOULD negate that theory."

It'd actually just shift the theory a bit.

But yeah.

8/3/2005 4:48:15 PM

Yeah, they would have to find a way to explain what happened. Which would involve tests, etc. I take back that it would negate the entire theory because thats not really correct.

Same thing happened to Einsteins theory. I forget what exactly happened, but light patterns in space weren't exactly was relativity predicted. It was a few years ago.

8/3/2005 4:49:53 PM

and Newton's theory was refuted by observations of the moon...

8/3/2005 4:51:41 PM

Quote :

"To understand the problems with Intelligent Design, first it is important to understand the theory it is attempting to oppose, evolution by natural selection."

there is your problem. ID and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. ID should not oppose evolution in general. of course, if you base ID on creationism, then yes, it does oppose it. However, the most basic form of ID is NOT creationism. AKA, all squares are rectangles but a rectangle doesn't have to be a square...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Science is science, yes. BUT, when you have a GOVT RUN SCHOOL which says to kids "YOUR RELIGION IS WRONG! THIS SCIENCE PROVES IT!" then you are going against the establishment clause. Thus, a a day of discussion about ID hurts nothing.

THe problem w/ our students' performance in science class is wholly unrelated to ID or religion. Its a problem w/ the schooling system itself. Thus, to try and use the "OMFG ID WILL MAKE OUR SCIENCE CLASSES WORSE, AND OUR SCIENCE CLASSES ARE ALREADY BAD ENOUGH! OMFG!!!" argument is pointless. One thing can certainly be said, though: ID isn't currently in the curriculum, so ID can't be the problem w/ our students' performance in the science classroom.

8/3/2005 5:25:31 PM

^thats why religion is "faith based"

8/3/2005 5:35:13 PM

and there's not some "faith" basis for science? The whole premise of science is that everything we can observe is true and is actually happening. At the risk of leading into a "head in a jar" argument, I'd say that such a premise requires faith, especially if you look at how that premise could be false: a creator being who made everything and made it all look older than it actually was...

thus, both religion and science have aspects of faith involved in them.

8/3/2005 5:57:07 PM

The only faith involved with science is that our perceptions of "reality" are accurate.

8/3/2005 6:01:06 PM

8/3/2005 6:10:07 PM

Quote :

"and there's not some "faith" basis for science? The whole premise of science is that everything we can observe is true and is actually happening."

Theres a difference between an assumption and faith.

8/3/2005 6:40:26 PM

Quote :

"President Bush said students "ought to be exposed to different ideas.""

Different ideas such as homosexuality...i mean creationism

8/3/2005 6:45:19 PM

^gg

8/3/2005 8:23:49 PM

Quote :

"The whole premise of science is that everything we can observe is true and is actually happening."

That's not required.

God is unscientific because there's not a set of observations that couldn't be explained without God. The scientific method should yield the simplest possible theory consistent with the observations. Any theory involving God is unnecessarily complex. The God part of it by itself isn't supported by anything and can safely be removed.


[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ..]

8/3/2005 9:26:06 PM

^ How does that illustrate that it's not required to assume that everything we can observe is true and is actually happening for science to be valid? Or is it that the term "science" is too broad?

8/3/2005 9:35:55 PM

What do you mean "science is valid"? Is Newtonian mechanics valid? Science is USEFUL. There's not a single true statement in any of the sciences. However, there're plenty of useful statements that can help you do lots of things.

P.S. And the second paragraph wasn't meant to illustrate the first one. Sorry for the confusion. They are two separate points.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 9:42 PM. Reason : ..]

8/3/2005 9:42:01 PM

^ Not i single true statement in ALL of the sciences? i find that a little hard to swallow.

8/3/2005 9:52:49 PM

I actually wondered what kind of idiot would argue ID as a scientific theory until I read some of the responses in this thread.

8/3/2005 9:57:40 PM

Quote :

"^ Not i single true statement in ALL of the sciences? i find that a little hard to swallow."

Name one FUNDAMENTALLY TRUE statement, meaning ABSOLUTELY true and not requiring any a posteriori clarifications.

8/3/2005 10:45:13 PM

Quote :

""Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," "

Well, Pres. Bush, there are many more than 2 sides. I can probably guess WHICH creation story he would like to have taught, but I think that they should all be taught. I think it'd be cool to learn about the creation theories of Hindus, Shintos, African tribes, ancient Persia, China, etc., etc.

Oh, wait, did Bush supporters flipped when those Chapel Hillers were asked to read a book about Islam? Probably he doesn't really want creationism taught in public school unless it's his approved version of it. Heaven forbid children's minds should be polluted with strange ideas from "other" religions.

8/3/2005 10:52:12 PM

you can learn about creation stories in humanities classes, science is for ACTUAL sciences.

8/3/2005 10:53:19 PM

Quote :

"Science is USEFUL."

Yeah, and that's what really matters.

8/4/2005 10:24:26 AM

And that, Zamboni, is why religion can't be taught in schools in this country.

8/4/2005 10:49:03 AM

You people are going to regret bringing this shit up again....

Quote :

"I've often debated between Intelligent design (ID) and evolution. Here's the logic for ID. 1) There are complex biological designs in nature (human eye for example) 2) Such design could not occur by random effect due to their complex nature 3) Only a supremely powerful being, like God, could create such a design. 4) Therefore, God exists and He/She created all human life. I don't buy this argument, mainly because it relies on ignorance. #2 assumes nature could not create such complex designs, but why? Currently no evidence can confirm nature could "create" the human eye out of consequence, but is this a valid reason for casting doubt upon evolution? Consider an incredibly complex math equation, one that spans several blackboards in a huge classroom. An ID-type argument would argue that since humans could not possibly solve such a problem on their own, only a supremely powerful being knows the solution. It sounds silly but it's true. ID advocates base their theory on the assertion that science cannot fully explain certain evolutionary phenomena. This is a terrible logical argument. The bottom line is that the Intelligent Design argument is not science. It has no place in classrooms. It is not a theory arising from the scientific method. It is, at best, a conjecture advocating caution in accepting evolution due to it's inability to fully explain nature's development. Such a theory is not science. Back in the days of Aristotle a greek named Democritus argued in favor of non-divisible components of substances called atoms. People could not conceive of particles that were so small they could not be seen, thus materials must be infinitely divisible. We all know who came out on the winning side of this debate. In short, don't attack the validity of a theory simply because you cannot conceive of the solution. It's short-sighted and demonstrates an unwillingness to alter your personal paradigm. Paradigms change all the time. Knowledge should be sought after not ridiculed for it's failings. That is all. "

8/4/2005 1:06:08 PM

Quote :

"Theres a difference between an assumption and faith."

yes there may be, but i never stated otherwise. *cough*strawman*cough* What I stated was that science was based upon a certain premise. If you can't see how that is a type of "faith," then I don't know what to say to you...

Quote :

"That's not required."

what isn't required? That we have to be trust our observations as true? If we don't trust our fucking observations as being what is actually happening, then how the fuck can you study anything? I'm talking empirical observations, not drawn observations(ie, conclusions).

Quote :

"you can learn about creation stories in humanities classes, science is for ACTUAL sciences."

thats all fine and dandy, except for:

Quote :

"Science is science, yes. BUT, when you have a GOVT RUN SCHOOL which says to kids "YOUR RELIGION IS WRONG! THIS SCIENCE PROVES IT!" then you are going against the establishment clause. Thus, a a day of discussion about ID hurts nothing."

Oh, and Erios, I've already torn that argument to shreds... Anyone with hald a brain could see that all of the evidence in the world that the creationists bring up against evolution being discredited based on natural observations is suspect from the vantage point of ID. Again, if we can't prove that our observations and measurements are always right, then all the naturally observed and measured evidence in the world spanking creationism doesn't mean a damn thing...

8/4/2005 2:05:37 PM

Quote :

"If you can't see how that is a type of "faith," then I don't know what to say to you..."

The point was what the difference is. In science we believe things to be true assuming that what we observe is the truth. In faith you believe something to be true blindly.

8/4/2005 2:14:14 PM

Quote :

" Bush wans to teach creationism in Public Schools"

how about mandatory teaching of evolution in sunday school? same argument, i just want to present all sides ...

[Edited on August 4, 2005 at 3:34 PM. Reason : 2]

8/4/2005 3:34:12 PM

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, CREATIONISM TEACHES YOU!!111

8/4/2005 3:39:15 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and Erios, I've already torn that argument to shreds... "

I swear to God if you claim one more time you "tore an argument to shreds" I'll reach through the computer and chop you hands off so you'll stop typing this excrement. You tearing an argument to shreds seems to go like this:

1) I'm right

2) You're wrong

3) I win

Optional: 4) If you say otherwise I'll post a bunch of quotes and half-assed responses to them so long that everyone else either (A) gets annoyed as hell, or (B) stops caring.

8/4/2005 3:42:59 PM

aarons modus operandi is to annoy the crap out of everyone until they give up in disgust and then he claims a "win".

8/4/2005 3:52:15 PM

Or when somebody shows that he is a contradicting moron he simply ignores it and goes on with the snipet tactic.

8/4/2005 3:53:34 PM

Quote :

"You can hypothetically create a situation in which gravity would not work according to theory, which WOULD negate that theory. "

-Armabond1

Have you been paying attn? That's my entire point, you CAN'T set up an experiment that would absolutley negate the theory. Like I said before, we can't test single hypothesis, we can only test a bundle of hypothesis at a time, and if I ever get a result i don't like I can preserve my pet hypothesis by rejecting one of the others. IOW: the theory of gravity is unfalsifiable.

8/4/2005 3:58:13 PM

Hey, Socksie, did you read that article I linked to?

8/4/2005 3:59:14 PM

Quote :

"God is unscientific because there's not a set of observations that couldn't be explained without God. The scientific method should yield the simplest possible theory consistent with the observations. Any theory involving God is unnecessarily complex. The God part of it by itself isn't supported by anything and can safely be removed."

-MathFreak

1) Could you please show me this "scientific method", because like I was saying earlier I've never seen one that stands up to scrutiny.

2) Should the point of "scientific" inquiry be the search for "simplest" solutions or to understand how the world around us actually works?

8/4/2005 4:14:36 PM

WE DON'T EXIST. WHAT CHAIR? THERE IS NO SPOON. WE'RE MERELY A FIGMENT OF SOMEONE'S IMAGINATION. DUST IN THE WIND, ALL WE ARE IS DUST IN THE WIND.

AD-FUCKING-INFINITUM.

[Edited on August 4, 2005 at 4:18 PM. Reason : *]

8/4/2005 4:17:49 PM

Let me try and draw this out in crayon so aaronburro can understand...

ID uses a negative argumentation. A negative argument uses the absence of something to prove something else is true. For example, a policeman sees no signs of a struggle in the house and thus concludes a murder took place elsewhere. In this example the policeman makes an assumption: the murder scene will show signs of a struggle.

If you do not accept the assertion that a murder scene will show signs of a struggle, then you obviously will reject the policeman's logic. It's not a bad argument, but it does require that critical assumption. This is where my argument against ID originates...

Intelligent Design makes a critical assumption. It assumes that if modern science can't explain the origins of a certain phenomena, then an all-powerful ominpotent being (God) must have designed it that way. My question then is simple: WHY?

Why is God must be the one to explain these "irreducible complexities?" What if aliens from another world came and seeded earth with life? The real assumption is that if modern science can't explain the origins of a certain phenomena, then these phenomena were created by an outside source. THAT is a better assumption, but even that assumes too much. Why?

Modern science couldn't explain the Grand Canyon until humans understood the concept of erosion. Modern science couldn't explain gaps and variation in fossil layers until humans understood techtonic activity. Modern science couldn't explain lightning until humans discovered electric charge and atmospheric environments.

Modern science hasn't been able to explain a lot of things over the years, but it has been explaining MORE. Why is all of the sudden should we take science as it is now and draw the line between the explained and unexplained? Humans haven't ventured outside our solar system. The depths of the ocean are equally unknown. Scientists have named, recorded, and catalogued but a FRACTION of Earth's species. How can we be so presumptuous to believe that unexplained phenomena will stay unexplained?

You can teach evolution. You can teach it's shortcomings. But you can't teach a theory that relies solely on the failures of another. Science has not and never will operate like that. Science demands evidence, and what evidence is there for ID? Just that evolution doesn't explain anything, and a religious/philosophical belief in a higher being.

Is this science? Is it science to base a theory on the absence of evidence and theological conjectures?



NO

8/4/2005 4:17:53 PM

Quote :

"Hey, Socksie, did you read that article I linked to?"

8/4/2005 4:20:12 PM

GoldenViper,

Sorry, didn't know that was ment for me. Just read it.

It's a good article and a good idea. I've seen a similar argument in Philip Kitcher's book "Abusing Science". If there is a candidate for seperating "science" and "pseudo-scientific", this is probably the best. But, personally, I have my reservations. Here is a list of my concerns:

1) It might dismiss some fields of inquiry as unscientific that we normally consider scientific, such as cosmology. The universe (as far as we know) has been only created once and we cannot we reproduce this act of creation in a lab. As such it would make formulating and testing novel predictions very difficult. We are mostly left trying to fit our theories of how the universe began to a set of already known facts, which would be unscientific according to this criteria.

2) I don't like the idea of putting so much weight on predictions. Certainly, some vry bad theories have made some very good predictions. Chinese accupuncture for example arguably made some pretty good predictions on certain types of pain releif based on some very bad theory. I don't see why the same couldn't be true in the future of novel predictions. We could possibly make good predictions with theories that aren't true.

3) Doesn't explainatory power count for something? Shouldn't science be also devoted to making accurate explainations of natural phenomia and not just make successful predictions?

[Edited on August 4, 2005 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ``]

8/4/2005 4:51:15 PM

Quote :

"Why is God must be the one to explain these "irreducible complexities?" What if aliens from another world came and seeded earth with life? The real assumption is that if modern science can't explain the origins of a certain phenomena, then these phenomena were created by an outside source. THAT is a better assumption, but even that assumes too much."

Well put. But FWIW, there are models of self-organizing systems that can account for the sorts of "irreducible complexity' that the ID types get all hot and bothered about. In particular, autocatalytic sets provide a model of how complex systems can arise spontaneously without a designer. The folks at talkorigins.org have a large and growing archive of stuff that pretty much shreds the whole intelligent design nonsense. Maybe aaronburro could try to learn something about the subject and point his browser here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

8/4/2005 5:01:46 PM

Quote :

"In science we believe things to be true assuming that what we observe is the truth."

exactly. you are ASSUMING its the truth. AKA, you don't know for SURE its the truth. Thus, its based on faith. BTW, your "blind" definition of faith is the most heinously wrong definition of faith ever.

Quote :

"how about mandatory teaching of evolution in sunday school? same argument, i just want to present all sides ..."

sure. but only if sunday school is run by the gov't... oh wait, it isn't.

Quote :

"Or when somebody shows that he is a contradicting moron he simply ignores it and goes on with the snipet tactic."

actually, you have yet to address my main point. you think I am saying that the creationists in IDs clothing are 100% right and logical and their "evidence" stands up to scientific scrutiny. I have never said that. I never will say it. What you don't seem to grasp that I am saying is this: ID should not be based on Christianity. Period. If it were, then it would be creationism. Wow, what a fucking shocker! And, guess what? I'd attack ID all day long if it were based on Christianity.

Here's the kicker! You think that because there are some creationists out there who call themselves "intelligent design proponents" and they make their arguments for ID, that since their arguments are stupid and wrong that ID must be 100% wrong. Guess what? THAT AINT THE FUCKING CASE. ID might have been proposed by Christians as a watered down creationism, but the ID that should be taught in schools would NOT be creationism. In fact, creationism would be a fucking subset of ID and mentioned merely in fucking passing.

So, keep attacking creationists and thinking that you are attacking ID. YOU AREN'T ATTACKING ID WHEN YOU DO THAT, asshat. I ignore your attack on creationism because its not fucking relevant.

Conveniently, however, you ignore my main point, which is about as relevant as it gets when you get down to it: leaving the basics of ID out of the science classroom violates the establishment clause. AND, its bad fucking "science" to do so anyway, since science can't prove its most basic tenent: that everything we observe and measure actually is true. That doesn't mean that science is stupid or wrong; rather that, as socks is saying, science is, at best, unproven.

So tell me, what is so fucking bad about what is effectively just a damned disclaimer being added to the science curriculum in order to actually uphold one of the most basic tenets of our gov't? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with whether creationism is right or wrong...

Quote :

"The folks at talkorigins.org have a large and growing archive of stuff that pretty much shreds the whole intelligent design nonsense."

and let me guess: its all based on the assumption that what we observe and measure is always true. Sounds to me like it doesn't prove a god damned thing. Maybe you should learn to read and comprehend an argument before you start calling people stupid.

8/4/2005 5:16:28 PM

^

Quote :

"WE DON'T EXIST. WHAT CHAIR? THERE IS NO SPOON. WE'RE MERELY A FIGMENT OF SOMEONE'S IMAGINATION. DUST IN THE WIND, ALL WE ARE IS DUST IN THE WIND. AD-FUCKING-INFINITUM."

8/4/2005 5:46:53 PM