Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you would not actually want to teach these ideas alongside their scientific analogue, as suggested by the thread title. Rather have just a mere mention from a historical perspective and how they have failed as science, and would not meet the requirements as being a bona-fide science.
Those things that are no longer believed should be mentioned from a historical perspective. Those things that are still widely believed should be taught by those who believe them. I wish The Logic of Scientific Discovery was required reading in high school so that students could distinguish between real science and secular theology. What is misnamed "social science" is nothing more than secular theology and is generally more absurd than alchemy, astrology, or witchcraft.
Those things that are no longer believed should be mentioned from a historical perspective. Those things that are still widely believed should be taught by those who believe them. I wish The Logic of Scientific Discovery was required reading in high school so that students could distinguish between real science and secular theology. What is misnamed "social science" is nothing more than secular theology and is generally more absurd than alchemy, astrology, or witchcraft.
As an atheist (ooh, watch out I might get eeevil on you...) I agree with you. Popper should be required reading. An understanding of the scientific method would help everyone understand when scientific claims are being overblown or ignored. It happens often, particularly where politics and science or religion and science intersect.
Those things that are no longer believed should be mentioned from a historical perspective. Those things that are still widely believed should be taught by those who believe them. I wish The Logic of Scientific Discovery was required reading in high school so that students could distinguish between real science and secular theology. What is misnamed "social science" is nothing more than secular theology and is generally more absurd than alchemy, astrology, or witchcraft.
Do you think that science should be based on "belief?" That's getting into "folk science." one of the purposes of the SM is to weed out those "beliefs."
Do you think that science should be based on "belief?" That's getting into "folk science." one of the purposes of the SM is to weed out those "beliefs."
Science should not be based on beliefs. But the scientific method is not to weed out beliefs but rather to distinguish between those beliefs that qualify as scientific and those that don't. All of us have beliefs that aren't scientific that we need to function. I will select my dinner in an unscientific way based on what I believe I will find tasty, and there is nothing wrong with this.
Science should not be based on beliefs. But the scientific method is not to weed out beliefs but rather to distinguish between those beliefs that qualify as scientific and those that don't. All of us have beliefs that aren't scientific that we need to function. I will select my dinner in an unscientific way based on what I believe I will find tasty, and there is nothing wrong with this.
You are conflating. Look at the thread title. Look at the words in my post. I am only referring to science. The scientific method IS used to weed out erroneous "beliefs." However, the SM will work on any "idea" that puts forth scientifically testable claims, that specific beliefs may generate. IOW, falsifiable. Test the claims. If the claims are consistently found to be falsified, the "idea" is erroneous and not reflected in reality. Flood Geology was such an idea. The SM has already weeded-out creationism ala creation-science as a bona-fide science. Orthodox creationism has not been falsified because it makes no testable claims. BTW, "distinguishing" is tantamount to weeding-out.
If you select your dinner based on what you believe will be tasty, then there has been some experimentation involved, hasn't there? The constituents were tasty at one time before, and based on prior testing, you can make a reasonable prediction and conclude that there is a probability that the new arrangement might be tasty as well. As in science, these conclusions are tentative, and new data from this current dinner can be incorporated into your dataset and change your conclusion that it might not be so tasty.
PanTerra, you obviously haven't read Popper and I think you should. The scientific method can only weed out erroneous FALSIFIABLE beliefs. Beliefs that aren't falsifiable are simply outside the domain of science. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taught. Every subject in school besides science and math is not rigorously falsifiable.
Evolution itself is a borderline case. How does one construct an experiment to falsify evolution? This isn't easy. "Creation science" is a misnomer about as bad as "social science". But creationism itself is fine as long as it doesn't call itself science.
I could construct scientific theories about what I like for dinner and then test them, but I don't bother. What I do is haphazard and unscientific, but it works well enough for me, so my dinners will remain unscientific.
PanTerra, you obviously haven't read Popper and I think you should. The scientific method can only weed out erroneous FALSIFIABLE beliefs. Beliefs that aren't falsifiable are simply outside the domain of science. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taught. Every subject in school besides science and math is not rigorously falsifiable.
Evolution itself is a borderline case. How does one construct an experiment to falsify evolution? This isn't easy. "Creation science" is a misnomer about as bad as "social science". But creationism itself is fine as long as it doesn't call itself science.
Well I think the issue with evolution is tricky because there is a scientific portion and a historical portion. History doesn't lend itself to falsifiability. You can't repeat it, and you always have incomplete information. What we can say it that our understanding of the mechanism of evolution, genetics, natural selection, etc.. is on pretty scientifically solid ground. The historical portion, not can evolution work or how does it work, but did it may not be a scientific question in the strict sense. However there is significant evidence for this proposition, and coupled with the scientifically based understanding of the mechanism itself, it is a pretty good bet.
Creation science as you say is not science. Which is where the difficulty enters in. Public schools are not supposed to be teaching religious dogma, so proponents try to sneak it in as a "science". It has no place there, and should be kept to a comparative religions class or a literature class.
Incidently, it sounds like you object to the content of the "social sciences", but are perfectly willing to have them taught if they are not presented as 'science"? What about folks in these sorts of fields who do use scientific methodology to research social phenomena, like economics, game theory, or other social science fields? I do agree that understanding of the methodology used and the limits of the data used is really important. In all areas of science, there are people trying to extend what is known to push the status quo politically. If more folks understood the limitations of science, of historical methodologies, and the like, I think we would be significantly better off as a nation and a world.
Well I think the issue with evolution is tricky because there is a scientific portion and a historical portion. History doesn't lend itself to falsifiability. You can't repeat it, and you always have incomplete information. What we can say it that our understanding of the mechanism of evolution, genetics, natural selection, etc.. is on pretty scientifically solid ground. The historical portion, not can evolution work or how does it work, but did it may not be a scientific question in the strict sense. However there is significant evidence for this proposition, and coupled with the scientifically based understanding of the mechanism itself, it is a pretty good bet.
I agree completely.
Quote:
Creation science as you say is not science. Which is where the difficulty enters in. Public schools are not supposed to be teaching religious dogma, so proponents try to sneak it in as a "science". It has no place there, and should be kept to a comparative religions class or a literature class.
Why shouldn't public schools teach religious dogma? I see nothing wrong with a class on Christianity or any other religion which teaches the beliefs of the religion.
Quote:
Incidently, it sounds like you object to the content of the "social sciences", but are perfectly willing to have them taught if they are not presented as 'science"? What about folks in these sorts of fields who do use scientific methodology to research social phenomena, like economics, game theory, or other social science fields? I do agree that understanding of the methodology used and the limits of the data used is really important. In all areas of science, there are people trying to extend what is known to push the status quo politically. If more folks understood the limitations of science, of historical methodologies, and the like, I think we would be significantly better off as a nation and a world.
One can develop tools to study social issues using math and science. But direct statements about social questions are never scientific because they can never be experimentally falsified. So it should be clear that tools may be scientific, but "social science" itself never is.
Of course I can do the same for religion. I can use scientific and mathematical tools to explore religious questions, but that doesn't make religion into a science. I did this in my articleModerator cut: delete
Last edited by Miss Blue; 10-08-2013 at 07:33 AM..
Reason: advertisding your website via your articles
Why shouldn't public schools teach religious dogma? I see nothing wrong with a class on Christianity or any other religion which teaches the beliefs of the religion.
There is a difference in a class that teaches, "Many Christians believe that man is utterly depraved, and is saved through the redemptive sacrifice of Christ" and one that teaches, "You are a sinner in need of grace" The former is teaching about religion and is not only acceptable, but I think important. The latter is teaching religious dogma directly, and should not be permitted by a public institution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
One can develop tools to study social issues using math and science. But direct statements about social questions are never scientific because they can never be experimentally falsified. So it should be clear that tools may be scientific, but "social science" itself never is.
I think this depends on where you draw the line between the "tools" and "social science". In general, sweeping statements are less likely to be scientifically based than narrow questions. I think part of this is the same problem as that of evolution. Many of the social sciences straddle the scientific and non scientific worlds, and so some parts can be evaluated scientifically and some parts may need to be evaluated using historical evidence, or the tools of logic. It is the blurring of these approaches that causes difficulties. That is not to say I am firmly on the side of science in all cases. For example, I tend Austian in economics, not Keyensian, but I recognize that the Keyensian approach is the more "scientific" of the two, I just don't agree with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
Of course I can do the same for religion. I can use scientific and mathematical tools to explore religious questions, but that doesn't make religion into a science. I did this in my article Human Evolution.
This is true. But the effects of religion on humanity can, for narrowly tailored questions, be approached scientifically. None of it answers the "religious" questions, but it can tell us about how religion interacts with other aspects of our lives and world.
There is a difference in a class that teaches, "Many Christians believe that man is utterly depraved, and is saved through the redemptive sacrifice of Christ" and one that teaches, "You are a sinner in need of grace" The former is teaching about religion and is not only acceptable, but I think important. The latter is teaching religious dogma directly, and should not be permitted by a public institution.
Why not? And how is this different from "social science" which is nothing more than liberal secular dogma?
Quote:
I think this depends on where you draw the line between the "tools" and "social science". In general, sweeping statements are less likely to be scientifically based than narrow questions. I think part of this is the same problem as that of evolution. Many of the social sciences straddle the scientific and non scientific worlds, and so some parts can be evaluated scientifically and some parts may need to be evaluated using historical evidence, or the tools of logic. It is the blurring of these approaches that causes difficulties. That is not to say I am firmly on the side of science in all cases. For example, I tend Austian in economics, not Keyensian, but I recognize that the Keyensian approach is the more "scientific" of the two, I just don't agree with it.
There is nothing in social science that is more scientific than religion itself is. On my website, I give logical reasons based on science for the various commandments in the Bible, but I don't call this science and I don't see why "social science" should be called science either.
Quote:
This is true. But the effects of religion on humanity can, for narrowly tailored questions, be approached scientifically. None of it answers the "religious" questions, but it can tell us about how religion interacts with other aspects of our lives and world.
I don't know what you consider a "religious" question, but the core question that is dealt with in the Old Testament is whether or not the commandments in the Torah should be followed. And I can give you scientific reasons for following almost all commandments in the Torah (though some need to be updated to modern conditions).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
