Kansas BOE purges falsification from standard
and...@my-deja.com
(see http://www.ksde.org, then look under Subject Categories and
Science).
The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard! A
key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from the
proposed standard. Here's a sample:
Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
Andy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Adam Marczyk
I'm sure the creationists must be very happy about this. It's one step
closer to teaching creationism in schools.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
wf...@ptd.net
gee i see nothing about evolution in that standard. andy's just
paranoid...typical of a creationist who sees evolutionists under every
bed...
Roger Schlafly
Sounds like Popper v. Kuhn, and the Kuhnians are winning. Proponents
of the Darwinian-Kuhnian-Gouldian agenda like to downplay falsification
as it might encourage independent thinking about official dogma.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
which, of course, has zip to do with evolution...
Andrew MacRae
|Kansas Board of Education has posted its new proposed science standard
|(see http://www.ksde.org, then look under Subject Categories and
|Science).
Hey, that's great. Now we can find out what has been gutted this
year :-)
|The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard!
Yeah, I know, I know. They "banned science, period", right?
|A
|key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from the
|proposed standard. Here's a sample:
|
|Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
|accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
|many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
|wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
|matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
|proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
|that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
|
|New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
|explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
|Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
Well that's pretty stupid, if true. It's a good idea to teach
science students about falsification. Are you *sure* it isn't a question
of terminology change, to use a more familiar word instead of using a
moderately obscure word like "falsification" or "falsify"? I can think of
a shorter word that is used quite a bit in the standards, that is probably
more immediately understandable, and which is quite similar. I'll give
you a hint. It's a four-letter word. It is one that scientists use alot
when talking about scientific hypotheses.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
and...@my-deja.com
You've got it backwards. The new Kansas BOE ran on a platform of
promoting evolution teaching. The new Kansas BOE is purging
falsification in order to promote evolution teaching.
and...@my-deja.com
So what's your explanation for the purging of falsification by the new
Kansas BOE, which ran on a platform of promoting evolution? I've got
it -- another example of pure chance at work!!!
Roger Schlafly
> >Sounds like Popper v. Kuhn, and the Kuhnians are winning. Proponents
> >of the Darwinian-Kuhnian-Gouldian agenda like to downplay falsification
> >as it might encourage independent thinking about official dogma.
> which, of course, has zip to do with evolution...
Ha! The Leftist-Darwian-Kuhnian-Gouldian conspiracy has used
evolution as a smokescreen in order to marshal the scientific
establishment into a righteous assault on the independence of
the Kansas school board. Now that they have purged any dissent
to official dogma, they use the opportunity to try to indoctrinate
future generations of Kansans not to dare buck the intellectual
elite.
wf...@ptd.net
actually andy got it all wrong...no surprise for a creationist. here's
what the kansas boe defines science as:
>Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and
> logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards
>and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations,
> hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about
>the natural world that can be used to build more complex
>inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation
>of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations,
> inferences, and tested hypotheses. Scientific explanations must meet certain
>criteria.
> They must be logical.
> They must be consistent with experimental and/or observational data.
> They must be testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation.
> They must follow strict rules that govern the repeatability of observations and experiments.
and, under 'changing emphasis', we find (under 'emphasize more')
> · Planning classroom activities that raise science questions
> which lead to investigation and analysis.
>
> · Planning investigations which are carried out over several
> class periods.
in fact, falsification and experimentation are such an integral part
of the standards that they're mentioned in virtually every section.
no wonder andy didnt understand them: they dont have 'goddidit' as
science so he got confused.
wf...@ptd.net
they didnt purge them. read the document. falsification, inquiry, and
investigation are such an integral part of the kansas standards that
they're mentioned in virtually every section. you're just confused
because you didnt see 'goddidit' as an explanation.
in addition, where is falsifiability in creationism? tell us how to
falsify the mechanism of creationism
oh...you cant because there aint none.
sorry, andy.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
since evolution isnt mentioned in the quote andy cited, both you and
he are exercising your right to be paranoid and read into the wording
what you wish was there. certainly your right...but not valid logic.
argue away boys...go right ahead...be my guest
and...@my-deja.com
mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
> In article <94arv1$k3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> and...@my-deja.com writes:
> |A
> |key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from
the
> |proposed standard. Here's a sample:
> |
> |Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
> |accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
> |many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
> |wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
> |matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
> |proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be
recognized
> |that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
> |
> |New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
> |explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
> |Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
>
> Well that's pretty stupid, if true. It's a good idea to teach
> science students about falsification. Are you *sure* it isn't a
question
> of terminology change, to use a more familiar word instead of using
a
> moderately obscure word like "falsification" or "falsify"?
Yeah, it's true, and I'm *sure* a more familiar word is not being used
instead. Look at my sample above.
> I can think of
> a shorter word that is used quite a bit in the standards, that is
probably
> more immediately understandable, and which is quite similar. I'll
give
> you a hint. It's a four-letter word. It is one that scientists use
alot
> when talking about scientific hypotheses.
Is "bait" the word you're looking for? As in "bait-and-switch" -- the
Kansas evolutionists claimed to be pro-science as the bait for voters,
but now switch to gutting science for ideological reasons.
wf...@ptd.net
>
>Is "bait" the word you're looking for? As in "bait-and-switch" -- the
>Kansas evolutionists claimed to be pro-science as the bait for voters,
>but now switch to gutting science for ideological reasons.
>
>Andy
>
>
andy hasnt read the standards; he doesnt know what they say, and what
they try to accomplish. his claim can be dismissed.
and...@my-deja.com
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
[snip]
Thank you -- your quote above confirms that falsification is *NOT*
mentioned in the new standard, and has been *purged* from it.
You say it's "mentioned in virtually every section." In fact, it's not
mentioned in *any* section.
But evolutionists did the purging, so I guess you won't criticize it.
Andy
[snip]
wf...@ptd.net
asking questions, and doing experiments isnt falisfication??
yeah, i guess if you're a creationist, asking questions ranks at the
bottom of intellectual pursuits.
>
>You say it's "mentioned in virtually every section." In fact, it's not
>mentioned in *any* section.
>
>But evolutionists did the purging, so I guess you won't criticize it.
>
>Andy
as i said, you havent read the document so you dont know what it says.
Andrew MacRae
That isn't the only place that the concept you are referring to,
and that I am referring to, is discussed. Falsification wasn't really
used much in the original document (the prior one, in Dec. 1999) anyway,
not compared to a similar word that means practically the same thing in a
scientific context. I suspect it was eliminated because it was largely
redundant and it drew a needless distinction that would probably cause
more confusion than help people understand the point.
|> I can think of a shorter word that is used quite a bit in the
|> standards, that is probably more immediately understandable,
|> and which is quite similar. I'll give
|> you a hint. It's a four-letter word. It is one that scientists use
|> alot when talking about scientific hypotheses.
|
|Is "bait" the word you're looking for? As in "bait-and-switch" -- the
|Kansas evolutionists claimed to be pro-science as the bait for voters,
|but now switch to gutting science for ideological reasons.
Nope. Guess again. "Bait" isn't used often when scientists are
talking about scientific hypotheses. Well, unless they are talking about
the fishery.
It would be prudent at this point for you to give me some
indication of when you plan to actually look, and either admit failure or
propose a serious guess. Would you like more hints, or should I just tell
you? I didn't think it would be this difficult.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Andrew MacRae
|wf...@ptd.net wrote:
|> >Sounds like Popper v. Kuhn, and the Kuhnians are winning. Proponents
|> >of the Darwinian-Kuhnian-Gouldian agenda like to downplay
falsification
|> >as it might encourage independent thinking about official dogma.
|> which, of course, has zip to do with evolution...
|
|Ha! The Leftist-Darwian-Kuhnian-Gouldian conspiracy
Uh, what? Are you joking? What conspiracy?
|has used
|evolution as a smokescreen in order to marshal the scientific
|establishment into a righteous assault on the independence of
|the Kansas school board. Now that they have purged any dissent
|to official dogma, they use the opportunity to try to indoctrinate
|future generations of Kansans not to dare buck the intellectual
|elite.
How do you reconcile that interpretation with the section entitled
"Teaching with Tolerance and Respect"?
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
and...@my-deja.com
No, that's not what falsification means.
But those who think evolution means merely "change over time" probably
want to redefine falsification as well. Does "experiments over time"
work for you???
The real definition of falsification is in the old standard.
[snip]
> as i said, you havent read the document so you dont know what it says.
Sounds like you could benefit from the studying the old standard.
Andy
Howard Hershey
Teaching with tolerance and respect for divergent approaches to
science *IS* the Leftist-Darwinian-Kuhnian-Gouldian conspiracy. Kuhn
is to be reviled for teaching that one can approach scientific
problems with tolerance and respect for alternative ideas.
>
> -Andrew
> mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <3a690b41....@news.ptdprolog.net>,
> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Thank you -- your quote above confirms that falsification is *NOT*
>> >mentioned in the new standard, and has been *purged* from it.
>>
>> asking questions, and doing experiments isnt falisfication??
to creationists, testing hyphotheses, and collecting data is
irrelevant to science.
>
>No, that's not what falsification means.
>
>But those who think evolution means merely "change over time" probably
>want to redefine falsification as well. Does "experiments over time"
>work for you???]
meaningless rhetoric from someone who believes experimentation runs a
poor second to arbitrarily inventing a biblical interpretation of the
world, and calling it science.
>
Rodjk #613
Ive got it. You are really peter nyikos!
Some nasty attitude, same inability to understand damn near anything!
Same paranoia.
Rod #613
stev...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Kansas Board of Education has posted its new proposed science standard
> (see http://www.ksde.org, then look under Subject Categories and
> Science).
>
> The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard! A
> key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from
>>the proposed standard. Here's a sample:
>
> Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
> accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
> many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
> wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
> matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
> proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
> that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
>
takes only one proof that a theory is false to prove that the theory is
false, BUT it usually takes more than one observation which contradicts
the theory to prove it false. Most hypotheses in science are less
simple and straightforward than "all cars are black."
For example, Newton's theories predict that the planet Uranus will be
in a certain position at a certain time. Uranus is observed at the set
time, and is somewhere else. One could assume that Newton was wrong in
some respect, or one could look for a new planet whose gravity, when
plugged into the equations, would predict the actual position of
Uranus. For that matter, if it had been only one observation which
conflicted with the theory, most astronomers would simply have assumed
that the observation was wrong. This is a classic problem with what
has been called "naive falsificationism." Any failure of the data to
match predictions of the theory can be explained EITHER by the
falsehood of the theory, or the falsehood of the observations, or by
changing your assumptions about the background conditions under which
you tested the theory. Basically you have to judge when you're making
too many allowances for bad observations or unknown variables to save a
flawed and unproductive theory, and when you're in danger of tossing
out a good theory because of a few minor anomalies which are
potentially easy to explain.
>
> New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
> explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
> Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
>
To consider alternative interpretations and to evaluate the validity of
results and conclusions is, precisely, to consider the problem stated
above: whether and when to toss out the data, your auxiliary hypotheses
(your unstated assumptions about the experimental setup), or the
hypothesis you're testing.
>
> Andy
>
>
-- Steven J.
Adam Marczyk
Please explain this statement.
Adam Marczyk
news:3A69002C...@my-dejanews.com...
Roger, you sound like a parody of yourself.
Adam Marczyk
> Kansas Board of Education has posted its new proposed science standard
> (see http://www.ksde.org, then look under Subject Categories and
> Science).
>
> The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard! A
> key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from the
> proposed standard. Here's a sample:
>
> Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
> accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
> many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
> wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
> matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
> proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
> that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
Um... Andy... the above paragraph is still in there, along with a _lot_ of
other references. Falsifiability has most definitely not been removed from
the standard. A few sample passages:
"Understanding the history, nature of science and limitations of science is
fundamental to scientific learning. Students will learn to distinguish
between science and other forms of knowledge or beliefs such as philosophy
and religion. Science uses observation, experimentation, induction and
deduction, and experimental, observational and statistical verification
strategies in formulating and testing the validity of explanations for the
behavior of the world around us. These explanations ought to be testable,
repeatable, _falsifiable_, open to criticism and not based upon authority."
(my emphasis)
"2. Explain how science uses peer review, replication of methods,
falsification and norms of honesty."
"Falsification - a method for determining the validity of an hypothesis,
theory or law. To be falsifiable a theory must be
testable, by others, in such a way that, if it is false, the tests can show
that it is false. Repeatability is an inadequate criterion and is
supplemented with falsification. The reason for falsifiability may not be
intuitively obvious. It is fine to make statements
like "this theory is backed by a great body of experiments and
observations," but often overlooked is the fact that such claims are
meaningless. Experiments and observations do not verify theories, they must
be evaluated by human reason to determine the degree of verification they
provide."
[snip]
Did you even read the whole thing before posting this? You really should
make your fraudulent claims a little harder to check up on.
Eros
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94arv1$k3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Kansas Board of Education has posted its new proposed science standard
> (see http://www.ksde.org, then look under Subject Categories and
> Science).
>
> The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard! A
> key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from the
> proposed standard. Here's a sample:
>
> Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
> accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
> many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
> wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
> matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
> proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
> that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
>
> explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
> Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
>
>
The Kansas Board of Education can do anything they want and it will have
absolutely NO effect on the scientific method, which has always held, as one
of it's basic premises, that a scientific theory must be falsifiable or it
is not a theory.
There must be some observation or evidence that would disprove the theory or
there is no point in investigating the phenomenon at all. Creationism fails
to meet this simple basic requirement of science. There is absolutely NO way
that a religious belief can be proved wrong, because its only method of
explanation is to appeal to the supernatural.
The Theory of Evolution on the other hand could easily be falsified... the
sudden creation of a new type of creature out of thin air for instance, or
the discovery of fossilised angels (or any Biblical creature for that
matter), or the revelation that we've all been duped and the sun and all the
planets DO actually revolve about the earth, or the discovery of great
pillars which hold up a flat earth covered by a vast watery mantle. Any of
these things would falsify Evolution entirely and many others such as the
discovery of fossils in Precambrian strata or verifiable examples of
fossilised human remains contemporary with dinosaurs would demand a serious
rethink of the Evolutionary Model.
So, those who insist that the religious concept of Creation is scientific
must also give examples of how their "theory" might be falsified. If they
can't, then they should stay out of the classroom and go back to church
where they belong!
EROS.
Eros
"Howard Hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3A691B69...@indiana.edu...
And just why is that?
EROS.
Eros
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:94av2p$1374$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...> news:3A68F99A...@my-dejanews.com...
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Kansas Board of Education has posted its new proposed science standard
> > > (see http://www.ksde.org, then look under Subject Categories and
> > > Science).
> > > The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard! A
> > > key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from
the
> > > proposed standard. Here's a sample:
> > > Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
> > > accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
> > > many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
> > > wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
> > > matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
> > > proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
> > > that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
> > > New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
> > > explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
> > > Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
> >
> > of the Darwinian-Kuhnian-Gouldian agenda like to downplay falsification
> > as it might encourage independent thinking about official dogma.
>
> "Darwinian-Kuhnian-Gouldian agenda?" "Official dogma?" You sound like
> Professor Nyikos on one of his less lucid days.
Yeah. Sounds like one of those conspiracy theory freaks to me. This isn't an
X-Files newsgroup is it!?
EROS.
Roger Schlafly
> Um... Andy... the above paragraph is still in there, along with a _lot_ of
> other references. Falsifiability has most definitely not been removed from
> the standard. A few sample passages:
> "Understanding the history, nature of science and limitations of science is
> fundamental to scientific learning. Students will learn to distinguish
> between science and other forms of knowledge or beliefs such as philosophy
> and religion. Science uses observation, experimentation, induction and
> deduction, and experimental, observational and statistical verification
> strategies in formulating and testing the validity of explanations for the
> behavior of the world around us. These explanations ought to be testable,
> repeatable, _falsifiable_, open to criticism and not based upon authority."
> (my emphasis)
You are reading the 1999 curriculum. That paragraph is now lined out.
See:
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
Maybe your browser does not show strikethrough text. The HTML is
a little strange.
Eros
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94b1lh$ogd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
You obviously don't understand, do you! What do you think the words
"consistent" and "testable" mean? How do you falsify something? You test it,
right? To see if it's consistent with the current theory. I think you need a
good lesson in semantics and logical thinking.
You obviously don't understand science in the slightest either or you'd know
what the scientific method requires. Come back when you have some direct
proof for Creation or some scientific discovery that could possibly falsify
it!
EROS.
Roger Schlafly
> |Ha! The Leftist-Darwian-Kuhnian-Gouldian conspiracy
> Uh, what? Are you joking? What conspiracy?
> |has used
> |evolution as a smokescreen in order to marshal the scientific
> |establishment into a righteous assault on the independence of
> |the Kansas school board. Now that they have purged any dissent
> |to official dogma, they use the opportunity to try to indoctrinate
> |future generations of Kansans not to dare buck the intellectual
> |elite.
> How do you reconcile that interpretation with the section entitled
> "Teaching with Tolerance and Respect"?
The main change in that section was replacing:
No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current
science theory should be censored. [1999]
with:
If a student should raise a question in a natural science class
that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of science,
the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher
should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural
science and encourage the student to discuss the question further
with his or her family and other appropriate sources. [2000]
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
That is a change to eliminate dissent.
Eros
Well done, Adam! At least someone had the brains to do the ground work!
EROS.
Roger Schlafly
"Formulate alternative models and explanations"
to "Recognize and analyze alternative explanations"
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
Why? Apparently students are not supposed to think on their own
enough to formulate an alternative model. That would be too
dangerous. Now, Kansans are only allowed to look at models that
have been spoon-fed to them.
Roger Schlafly
> The Theory of Evolution on the other hand could easily be falsified...
So why are the pro-evolution folks so eager to remove "falsification"
from the curriculum?
Roger Schlafly
> The Theory of Evolution on the other hand could easily be falsified...
So why are the pro-evolution folks so eager to remove "falsification"
from the curriculum?
Roger Schlafly
> The Theory of Evolution on the other hand could easily be falsified...
So why are the pro-evolution folks so eager to remove "falsification"
from the curriculum?
WickedDyno
<ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:3A69002C...@my-dejanews.com...
> > wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> > > >Sounds like Popper v. Kuhn, and the Kuhnians are winning. Proponents
> > > >of the Darwinian-Kuhnian-Gouldian agenda like to downplay
> > > >falsification
> > > >as it might encourage independent thinking about official dogma.
> > > which, of course, has zip to do with evolution...
> >
> > Ha! The Leftist-Darwian-Kuhnian-Gouldian conspiracy has used
> > evolution as a smokescreen in order to marshal the scientific
> > establishment into a righteous assault on the independence of
> > the Kansas school board. Now that they have purged any dissent
> > to official dogma, they use the opportunity to try to indoctrinate
> > future generations of Kansans not to dare buck the intellectual
> > elite.
>
> Roger, you sound like a parody of yourself.
s/sound like/are/.
HTH. HAND.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
<Er...@Mt.Olympus> wrote:
Well, it all dates back to Atlantis, when the founder of the
Illuminati....
Boikat
>
> Some of these changes are odd. Kansas changed
> "Formulate alternative models and explanations"
> to "Recognize and analyze alternative explanations"
> http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
>
> Why? Apparently students are not supposed to think on their own
> enough to formulate an alternative model.
Yet they also say, in the section
"Changing Emphases in the Nature of Science
Content and Changing Emphases to Promote Inquiry"
Less Emphasis On
Knowing only scientific facts and information.
Covering many science topics.
Implementing inquiry as a set of isolated
processes.
Activities that demonstrate a known science
concept.
Investigations confined to one class period.
Emphasis on individual process skills such as
observation or inference taken out of context.
Getting an answer.
Individuals and groups of students analyzing and
synthesizing data without defending a conclusion.
Teachers providing answers to questions about
science content.
More Emphasis On
Understanding scientific concepts and developing
abilities of inquiry.
Studying a few fundamental science concepts.
Implementing inquiry as instructional strategies,
abilities, learning ideas, and integrated
processes.
Activities that generate, investigate, and analyze
science questions.
Investigations over extended periods of time.
Using multiple process skills such as
manipulation, cognitive, and procedural skills in
the context of inquiry.
Using evidence and strategies for developing or
revising an explanation.
Groups of students often analyzing and
synthesizing data and defending conclusions.
Students building and communicating scientific
explanations.
> That would be too
> dangerous.
So, aside from the part about putting more
emphasis on "Using evidence and strategies for
developing or revising an explanation", what did
you misunderstand, and means they cannot think on
their own
> enough to formulate an alternative model.(assuming that by "alternate models" you mean "explaination" as in "theories")?
> Now, Kansans are only allowed to look at models that
> have been spoon-fed to them.
Back into the "Full of Crap" bucket with ye!
Boikat
Boikat
They are not. You are just playing another one of
your slippery word games.
Boikat
Eros
They're not! Instead of perpetuating silly rumours, why don't you go away
and read the Kansas Board of Education document for yourself. Adam Marczyk
already has, and here is what he said in a previous post;-
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:94ba8f$1oem$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> > The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard! A
> > key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from the
> > proposed standard. Here's a sample:
> >
> > Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
> > accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
> > many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
> > wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
> > matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
> > proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
> > that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
>
Same goes for you Roger!
EROS.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Andrew MacRae wrote:
>> |Ha! The Leftist-Darwian-Kuhnian-Gouldian conspiracy
>> Uh, what? Are you joking? What conspiracy?
>> |has used
>> |evolution as a smokescreen in order to marshal the scientific
>> |establishment into a righteous assault on the independence of
>> |the Kansas school board. Now that they have purged any dissent
>> |to official dogma, they use the opportunity to try to indoctrinate
>> |future generations of Kansans not to dare buck the intellectual
>> |elite.
>> How do you reconcile that interpretation with the section entitled
>> "Teaching with Tolerance and Respect"?
>
>The main change in that section was replacing:
> No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current
> science theory should be censored. [1999]
>
and that position has not changed. the current standards retain that
idea.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
well, of course, both you and your brother are lying. here's what the
standards say regarding falsifiability and criticism of theories:
> History and Nature of Science
> Understanding the history, nature of science and limitations
> of science is fundamental to scientific learning. Students
> will learn to distinguish between science and other forms of
>knowledge or beliefs such as philosophy and religion. Science uses
>observation, experimentation, induction and deduction,
> and experimental, observational and statistical verification
>strategies in formulating and testing the validity of explanations
> for the behavior of the world around us. These explanations ought to be
> testable, repeatable, falsifiable, open to criticism
> and not based upon authority.
so, roger, i wont say you and your brother are liars. i'll be gracious
and say, as creationists, you're propagandist FOR a lie, and have
chosen to ignore the evidence.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
they didnt. its embedded in the entire document.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
actually roger is right, and he's wrong. here's what the NEW standard
says:
>STANDARD 7: HISTORY AND NATURE OF SCIENCE
>Teachers can support the development of scientific habits of mind
>by providing students with on-going instruction
>using inquiry as a framework. Middle level Students can
>apply science concepts in investigations. They can work
>individually and on teams while conducting inquiry.
>They can share their work through varied mediums, and they
>can self-evaluate their learning. High expectations for accuracy,
> reliability, and openness to differing opinions should
>be exercised.
>1. Practice intellectual honesty.
>
> Examples Analyze news articles to evaluate if the
>< articles apply statistics/data to bring clarity, or if
> the articles use data to mislead. Analyze data and recognize
> that an hypothesis not supported by data should not be
> perceived as a right or wrong answer.
'openness to differing opinions...', analysis of data...
yeah, i guess to a creationist that means censorship.
Boikat
But then again, the Schlafly entities may be using
a private definition of the word "falsifiable".
Boikat
Henry Barwood
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> Ha! The Leftist-Darwian-Kuhnian-Gouldian conspiracy has used
> evolution as a smokescreen in order to marshal the scientific
> establishment into a righteous assault on the independence of
> the Kansas school board. Now that they have purged any dissent
> to official dogma, they use the opportunity to try to indoctrinate
> future generations of Kansans not to dare buck the intellectual
> elite.
Did a scientist run over your cat or something, Schlafly?
Barwood
Henry Barwood
Rodjk #613 wrote:
Of Schlafly's conspiracy rant.
> Ive got it. You are really peter nyikos!
> Some nasty attitude, same inability to understand damn near anything!
> Same paranoia.
If Schlafly starts posting lists.....
Barwood
sarah clark
> You've got it backwards. The new Kansas BOE ran on a platform of
> promoting evolution teaching. The new Kansas BOE is purging
> falsification in order to promote evolution teaching.
no, they are purging a clearly inaccurate example of falsification
in order to promote science. this example of falsification, which
iirc, i called attention to months ago, was an insertion made to
promote a particular religious ideology, creationism. steven
j. has explained quite well why the creationist standard is
misleading, so i won't repeat that.
--
sarah clark
A lot of people won't get no supper tonight,
A lot of people won't get no justice tonight.
-- (W. Williams/ J. Mittoo)
Performed by The Clash, with Mikey Dread
This is a must-have album ...
sarah clark
> The main change in that section was replacing:
> No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current
> science theory should be censored. [1999]
>
> with:
> If a student should raise a question in a natural science class
> that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of science,
> the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher
> should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural
> science and encourage the student to discuss the question further
> with his or her family and other appropriate sources. [2000]
> http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
>
> That is a change to eliminate dissent.
excuse me, how does it eliminate dissent to point a religious
question back to the parents? what would you suggest instead?
Boikat
>
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> > The main change in that section was replacing:
> > No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current
> > science theory should be censored. [1999]
> >
> > with:
> > If a student should raise a question in a natural science class
> > that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of science,
> > the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher
> > should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural
> > science and encourage the student to discuss the question further
> > with his or her family and other appropriate sources. [2000]
> > http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
> >
> > That is a change to eliminate dissent.
You mean a change that makes it easier to stay on
the subject of science in a science class, and not
disrupting it just to let some self-righteous
religious fanatic (coached by adults) squink their
religious views, or worse, preach, while other
kids are trying to get a real education??? Wow!
What a concept!
>
> excuse me, how does it eliminate dissent to point a religious
> question back to the parents? what would you suggest instead?
Only a Schlafly can answer that, since they
probably have a private definition of "dissent".
(It apparently doesn't have anything to do with
the context of science in a science class versus
pseudo-science in a science class).
Boikat
Dave Sandborg
> Kansas Board of Education has posted its new proposed science standard
> (see http://www.ksde.org, then look under Subject Categories and
> Science).
>
> The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard! A
> key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from the
> proposed standard. Here's a sample:
>
> Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
> accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
> many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
> wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
> matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
> proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
> that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
>
> New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
> explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
> Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
What evidence do we have that this was done because of the work of
"evolutionists"? I note that the falsificationism in the old standard
could be regarded as "naive". It's been known for a long time that "it
only takes one proof that its false to show that it is false" is beset
with problems in practical application. I think there's something to
be said for falsificationism, but as a principle of intellectual
honesty, not as the logical underpinning of science. As such, it
doesn't seem to be a problem for evolution, but it should certainly
give creationists reason to pause...
--
Dave Sandborg
Remove Spam-away to respond via e-mail.
Dave Sandborg
> But evolutionists did the purging, so I guess you won't criticize it.
"Testability" is, IMHO, superior to "falisfiability". The passage you
quoted from the original standard was "naive falsificationism". This
is less so. I have no complaints.
and...@my-deja.com
mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
> In article <94b0ls$nn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> and...@my-deja.com writes:
> |In article <94aucp$3mu$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> | mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
> |> In article <94arv1$k3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> and...@my-deja.com
writes:
> |[snip]
> |> |A
> |> |key part of science, falsification has been removed completely
from
> |> |the proposed standard. Here's a sample:
> |> |
> |> |Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
> |> |accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong?
How
> |> |many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that
it is
> |> |wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time.
No
> |> |matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes
one
> |> |proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be
> |> |recognized that in the real world it might take years to falsify a
> |> |theory."
> |> |
> |> |New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently
held
> |> |explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
> |> |Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated
conclusions."
> |>
> |> science students about falsification. Are you *sure* it isn't a
> |> question of terminology change, to use a more familiar word
instead of
> |> using a moderately obscure word like "falsification" or "falsify"?
> |
> |Yeah, it's true, and I'm *sure* a more familiar word is not being
used
> |instead. Look at my sample above.
>
> That isn't the only place that the concept you are referring
to,
> and that I am referring to, is discussed. Falsification wasn't
really
> used much in the original document (the prior one, in Dec. 1999)
anyway,
Falsification was defined clearly and in detail in the prior Kansas
standard.
> not compared to a similar word that means practically the same thing
in a
> scientific context. I suspect it was eliminated because it was
largely
> redundant and it drew a needless distinction that would probably
cause
> more confusion than help people understand the point.
Falsification was eliminated by evolutionists from the standard for
only plausible reason -- because evolution theory cannot be falsified.
Given a choice between rigorous science and promoting evolution, the
evolution promoters chose the latter.
Andy
[snip]
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
and...@my-deja.com
s...@hal-pc.org wrote:
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > You've got it backwards. The new Kansas BOE ran on a platform of
> > promoting evolution teaching. The new Kansas BOE is purging
> > falsification in order to promote evolution teaching.
>
> no, they are purging a clearly inaccurate example of falsification
> in order to promote science. this example of falsification, which
> iirc, i called attention to months ago, was an insertion made to
> promote a particular religious ideology, creationism. steven
> j. has explained quite well why the creationist standard is
> misleading, so i won't repeat that.
The evolutionists eliminated *all* references to falsification.
If they thought the example of falsification were in error, as you
argue, then they would have proposed an alternative example. Rather,
they purged falsification itself.
Andy
and...@my-deja.com
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> sarah clark wrote:
> >
> > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >
> > > The main change in that section was replacing:
> > > No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current
> > > science theory should be censored. [1999]
> > >
> > > with:
> > > If a student should raise a question in a natural science class
> > > that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of science,
> > > the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher
> > > should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural
> > > science and encourage the student to discuss the question
further
> > > with his or her family and other appropriate sources. [2000]
> > > http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
> > >
> > > That is a change to eliminate dissent.
>
> You mean a change that makes it easier to stay on
> the subject of science in a science class, and not
> disrupting it just to let some self-righteous
> religious fanatic (coached by adults) squink their
> religious views, or worse, preach, while other
> kids are trying to get a real education??? Wow!
> What a concept!
Some t.o oldtimers apparently think that anyone who disagrees with them
is a "creationist" or religious fanatic. Question evolution -- you
must be a religious fanatic coached by adults!!!
> > excuse me, how does it eliminate dissent to point a religious
> > question back to the parents? what would you suggest instead?
What the prior standard states: "No evidence or analysis of evidence
that contradicts a current science theory should be censored." But
apparently evolutionists need such censorship in the classroom just to
survive.
Andy
[snip]
and...@my-deja.com
The problem is that some pseudo-scientists are running over science.
Do you defend the purging of falsification from the Kansas standard?
Apparently any means is justified in promoting evolution!!!
Andy
and...@my-deja.com
If that were really the evolutionists' objection, then they would have
modified it. Instead, they purged it.
As to your suggestion that the new Kansas standard is not the work of
evolutionists, no one else makes this claim. Evolutionists are
bragging about their work in Kansas.
> It's been known for a long time that "it
> only takes one proof that its false to show that it is false" is beset
> with problems in practical application. I think there's something to
> be said for falsificationism, but as a principle of intellectual
> honesty, not as the logical underpinning of science. As such, it
> doesn't seem to be a problem for evolution, but it should certainly
> give creationists reason to pause...
If it isn't a problem for evolutionists, then why are they purging
falsification from the standard? Answer: it is a problem for
evolution, and evolutionists don't want students to be taught it for
ideogical reasons.
Roger Schlafly
> well, of course, both you and your brother are lying. here's what the
> standards say regarding falsifiability and criticism of theories:
>
> > History and Nature of Science
> > Understanding the history, nature of science and limitations
> > of science is fundamental to scientific learning. Students
> > will learn to distinguish between science and other forms of
> >knowledge or beliefs such as philosophy and religion. Science uses
> >observation, experimentation, induction and deduction,
> > and experimental, observational and statistical verification
> >strategies in formulating and testing the validity of explanations
> > for the behavior of the world around us. These explanations ought to be
> > testable, repeatable, falsifiable, open to criticism
> > and not based upon authority.
No, that is what the old standard said. That paragraph has been lined
out in the new standard. See:
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
Apparently the Darwinian leftists do not want students to be able to
distinguish between science andother subjects. Elsewhere, it says
that students are to just accept what the teacher says about the
domain of science:
Roger Schlafly
> > > The Theory of Evolution on the other hand could easily be falsified...
> > So why are the pro-evolution folks so eager to remove "falsification"
> > from the curriculum?
> They're not! Instead of perpetuating silly rumours, why don't you go away
> and read the Kansas Board of Education document for yourself. Adam Marczyk
> already has, and here is what he said in a previous post;-
Are you just taking his word for it? Even wf...@ptd.net, who calls me a
liar at every opportunity, has conceded that I am right and Adam is
wrong about this. See the new standard:
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
Roger Schlafly
> > The main change in that section was replacing:
> > No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current
> > science theory should be censored. [1999]
> > with:
> > If a student should raise a question in a natural science class
> > that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of science,
> > the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher
> > should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural
> > science and encourage the student to discuss the question further
> > with his or her family and other appropriate sources. [2000]
> > http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
> >
> > That is a change to eliminate dissent.
>
> excuse me, how does it eliminate dissent to point a religious
> question back to the parents? what would you suggest instead?
It doesn't refer to "religious question". It says "teacher determines
to be outside the domain of science". IOW, instituting a ready
defense mechanism for getting rid of any embarrassing questions.
Dave Sandborg
> In article <200120011110281964%sand...@Spam-away.ix.netcom.com>,
> Dave Sandborg <sand...@Spam-away.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > What evidence do we have that this was done because of the work of
> > "evolutionists"? I note that the falsificationism in the old standard
> > could be regarded as "naive".
>
> If that were really the evolutionists' objection, then they would have
> modified it. Instead, they purged it.
They *did* modify it, substituting "testability" for "falsifiablility".
Change of vocabulary is not the same as purging the concept from the
standard.
> As to your suggestion that the new Kansas standard is not the work of
> evolutionists, no one else makes this claim. Evolutionists are
> bragging about their work in Kansas.
What reason do we have to believe that support of evolution is the
*sole* motivation for any change in the standards?
> > It's been known for a long time that "it
> > only takes one proof that its false to show that it is false" is beset
> > with problems in practical application. I think there's something to
> > be said for falsificationism, but as a principle of intellectual
> > honesty, not as the logical underpinning of science. As such, it
> > doesn't seem to be a problem for evolution, but it should certainly
> > give creationists reason to pause...
>
> If it isn't a problem for evolutionists, then why are they purging
> falsification from the standard? Answer: it is a problem for
> evolution, and evolutionists don't want students to be taught it for
> ideogical reasons.
Maybe they're making the change because somebody realized that
falsification is a disputed theory in the philosophy of science.
Scientists seem to have adopted it somewhat uncritically in talking
about philosophy of science, but that seems to have happened in the
case of Kuhn, too. "Testability" is a less contentious word to use,
less tied to a specific philosophical theory. I think that's an
improvement; it's not like philosophers do or should have the last word
in how science should be practiced.
Roger Schlafly
> > New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
> > explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
> > Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
> What evidence do we have that this was done because of the work of
> "evolutionists"?
That was the whole Kansas controversy. Supposedly some right-wingers
got control of the Kansas school board and revised the standard to
de-emphasized evolution. So the evolutionists hit the panic button
and started a crusade to reclaim Kansas into their ideological camp.
> I note that the falsificationism in the old standard
> could be regarded as "naive". It's been known for a long time that "it
> only takes one proof that its false to show that it is false" is beset
> with problems in practical application. I think there's something to
> be said for falsificationism, but as a principle of intellectual
> honesty, not as the logical underpinning of science. As such, it
> doesn't seem to be a problem for evolution, but it should certainly
> give creationists reason to pause...
Well, it is the evolutionists who want to get rid of "falisification"
being taught in Kansas.
Roger Schlafly
> > If that were really the evolutionists' objection, then they would have
> > modified it. Instead, they purged it.
> They *did* modify it, substituting "testability" for "falsifiablility".
> Change of vocabulary is not the same as purging the concept from the
> standard.
The words are not interchangeable. Popper made his whole career
on emphasizing the difference.
> > If it isn't a problem for evolutionists, then why are they purging
> > falsification from the standard? Answer: it is a problem for
> > evolution, and evolutionists don't want students to be taught it for
> > ideogical reasons.
> Maybe they're making the change because somebody realized that
> falsification is a disputed theory in the philosophy of science.
Ok, I guess you agree that they are not interchangeable.
> Scientists seem to have adopted it somewhat uncritically in talking
> about philosophy of science, but that seems to have happened in the
> case of Kuhn, too. "Testability" is a less contentious word to use,
> less tied to a specific philosophical theory. I think that's an
> improvement; it's not like philosophers do or should have the last word
> in how science should be practiced.
Yes, the Darwinian-Leftists don't like the word "falsifiable"
because they prefer to define evolution in a way that is not
falsifiable, but don't want to be placed outside the domain
of science.
Dave Sandborg
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
I know that the standards in Kansas were in part revised because of
their prior stance towards evolution. But what's the evidence that
*all* the changes were due to this concern? If you look at the
"Acknowledgement of Prior Work" section of the document, you'll see
that they're claiming that the standards are in substantial agreement
wiht national standards. The entire section is new to this version of
the document. Hence some of the changes could be due to making the
standards more congruent with national standards. Why should we think
that any particular change in the document has to do with evolution at
all?
Boikat
What other non-religious alternative would that
be? If it's religious, it's creationism. If the
objection, on the other hand, is scientific in
nature, there is no problem. (Fore instance,
undirected panspermia would be a viable topic, not
so much as evolution goes, just "how life began on
earth").
> > > excuse me, how does it eliminate dissent to point a religious
> > > question back to the parents? what would you suggest instead?
>
> What the prior standard states: "No evidence or analysis of evidence
> that contradicts a current science theory should be censored." But
> apparently evolutionists need such censorship in the classroom just to
> survive.
One more time: What does the religious tenet of
creationism have to do with real science? Since
creationism is not science, why pretend to treat
it as one? If there was some valid scientific
evidence to support it, that would be another
matter. Since creationism is not a scientific
opposing view, it has no place in a class that
deals with science.
Boikat
Boikat
What "embarassing questions" would they be?
Boikat
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <3A699E4B...@hal-pc.org>,
> s...@hal-pc.org wrote:
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > You've got it backwards. The new Kansas BOE ran on a platform of
>> > promoting evolution teaching. The new Kansas BOE is purging
>> > falsification in order to promote evolution teaching.
>>
>> no, they are purging a clearly inaccurate example of falsification
>> in order to promote science. this example of falsification, which
>> iirc, i called attention to months ago, was an insertion made to
>> promote a particular religious ideology, creationism. steven
>> j. has explained quite well why the creationist standard is
>> misleading, so i won't repeat that.
>
>The evolutionists eliminated *all* references to falsification.
which is absolutely wrong. experimentation, inquiry, openness to
theories and data...all are called for. what is not called for is the
meaningless idea that 'goddidit'.
wf...@ptd.net
if i questioned the idea that the earth is round, what would i be? a
nut? yep...
then why does andy want a double standard for something as well
established as evolution? if you question it, you're obviously a
nutcase.
>
>> > excuse me, how does it eliminate dissent to point a religious
>> > question back to the parents? what would you suggest instead?
>
>What the prior standard states: "No evidence or analysis of evidence
>that contradicts a current science theory should be censored." But
>apparently evolutionists need such censorship in the classroom just to
>survive.
>
there is no censorship, period. you just favor unlimited big govt
power to teach religion in classrooms, which is against the
constitution. creationists favor as big a govt as is possible to force
fed their religion to children.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
you saying creationism isnt a religious belief?
no one would agree with that statement who isnt a fundie.
wf...@ptd.net
they didnt purge it. in addition, the standards apply to ALL of
science teaching in kansas. andy hasnt proven the standards apply ONLY
to evolution. but his antiscience bias limits his perception ONLY to
evolution.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <94b31j$910$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
>>
That isn't the only place that the concept you are referring
>to,
>> and that I am referring to, is discussed. Falsification wasn't
>really
>> used much in the original document (the prior one, in Dec. 1999)
>anyway,
>
>Falsification was defined clearly and in detail in the prior Kansas
>standard.
as it is in the new one.
>
>> not compared to a similar word that means practically the same thing
>in a
>> scientific context. I suspect it was eliminated because it was
>largely
>> redundant and it drew a needless distinction that would probably
>cause
>> more confusion than help people understand the point.
>
>Falsification was eliminated by evolutionists from the standard for
>only plausible reason -- because evolution theory cannot be falsified.
see francis ayala's webpage at UCAL irvine for info on experimental
evolutionary biology.
>
>Given a choice between rigorous science and promoting evolution, the
>evolution promoters chose the latter.
since the standards apply to ALL of science teaching in kansas, only
andy's antiscience bias causes him to focus on evolution. he simply
cant read.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> well, of course, both you and your brother are lying. here's what the
>> standards say regarding falsifiability and criticism of theories:
>>
>> > History and Nature of Science
>> > Understanding the history, nature of science and limitations
>> > of science is fundamental to scientific learning. Students
>> > will learn to distinguish between science and other forms of
>> >knowledge or beliefs such as philosophy and religion. Science uses
>> >observation, experimentation, induction and deduction,
>> > and experimental, observational and statistical verification
>> >strategies in formulating and testing the validity of explanations
>> > for the behavior of the world around us. These explanations ought to be
>> > testable, repeatable, falsifiable, open to criticism
>> > and not based upon authority.
>
>No, that is what the old standard said. That paragraph has been lined
>out in the new standard. See:
>http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
you are correct. the new standards call for investigating data to
determine if it supports proposed theories...ie falsifiability...which
is what your brother said was deleted...of course he's wrong.
>
>Apparently the Darwinian leftists do not want students to be able to
>distinguish between science andother subjects.
since the new standards clearly spell out that data should be
analysed, you're just being a typical paranoid creationist fellow
traveler.
Elsewhere, it says
>that students are to just accept what the teacher says about the
>domain of science:
>
> "The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain
> of natural science"
you saying there are no questions outside the domain of science, or
that teachers cant teach??
interesting view of both science AND teaching...
>
sarah clark
>
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >
> > > excuse me, how does it eliminate dissent to point a religious
> > > question back to the parents? what would you suggest instead?
> >
> > It doesn't refer to "religious question". It says "teacher determines
> > to be outside the domain of science". IOW, instituting a ready
> > defense mechanism for getting rid of any embarrassing questions.
>
> What "embarassing questions" would they be?
my daughter's kindergarden teacher, who happens to be
jewish, was asked by a child if jesus preceded the
big bang. (so her answer to that question should
be clear) her answer to the child was "some people think so".
i for one would think a standard like the one roger complains
about, which explicitly states that such a question is to
be referred back to the parents is preferable to such an
answer.
wf...@ptd.net
<sand...@Spam-away.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <94arv1$k3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Kansas Board of Education has posted its new proposed science standard
>> (see http://www.ksde.org, then look under Subject Categories and
>> Science).
>>
>> The evolutionists purged falsification from the proposed standard! A
>> key part of science, falsification has been removed completely from the
>> proposed standard. Here's a sample:
>>
>> Old standard: "Learn about falsification. Example: What would we
>> accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? How
>> many times would we have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is
>> wrong? Answers: One car of any color but black and only one time. No
>> matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one
>> proof that it is false to show it to be false. It should be recognized
>> that in the real world it might take years to falsify a theory."
>>
>> New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
>> explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
>> Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
>
>What evidence do we have that this was done because of the work of
>"evolutionists"? I note that the falsificationism in the old standard
>could be regarded as "naive".
which is precisely why creationists love it. in addition, since
creationism is based on textual literalism, if the word
'falsification' disappears, they have a hard time understanding
science...kinda like how they view the trinity...after all, that word
shows up plenty of times in the new testament, right?
It's been known for a long time that "it
>only takes one proof that its false to show that it is false" is beset
>with problems in practical application.
which is why andy is having a problem with his view of mungo man.
those of us who DO experimental work know that the 'one proof'
criteria is nonsense.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Dave Sandborg wrote:
>> > New standard: "Share interpretations that differ from currently held
>> > explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims.
>> > Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions."
>> What evidence do we have that this was done because of the work of
>> "evolutionists"?
>
>That was the whole Kansas controversy. Supposedly some right-wingers
>got control of the Kansas school board and revised the standard to
>de-emphasized evolution. So the evolutionists hit the panic button
>and started a crusade to reclaim Kansas into their ideological camp.
you mean honesty is an intellectual camp? to a creationist, i guess
thats true...
>
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
for an example of empirical evolutionary biology see francis ayala's
webpage at UCAL irvine..something roger ignores...
incidentally, roger...where can we see info on testing the mechanism
of creationism??
oh...creationism HAS no mechanism. sorry.
wf...@ptd.net
of course...they restored intellectual honesty to science that was
gutted by religious fundamentalists
>
>> It's been known for a long time that "it
>> only takes one proof that its false to show that it is false" is beset
>> with problems in practical application. I think there's something to
>> be said for falsificationism, but as a principle of intellectual
>> honesty, not as the logical underpinning of science. As such, it
>> doesn't seem to be a problem for evolution, but it should certainly
>> give creationists reason to pause...
>
>If it isn't a problem for evolutionists, then why are they purging
>falsification from the standard? Answer: it is a problem for
>evolution, and evolutionists don't want students to be taught it for
>ideogical reasons.
>
>Andy
they didnt purge it. you simply dont understand what it means, or how
its done. those of us who WORK in labs know you fundie folks have a
warped view of science.
Laurence A. Moran
[snip]
>Some t.o oldtimers apparently think that anyone who disagrees with
>them is a "creationist" or religious fanatic. Question evolution
>-- you must be a religious fanatic coached by adults!!!
I can't speak for the t.o. oldtimers but this doesn't represent my
position. I don't necessarily assume that everyone who rejects
evolution is a religious fanatic. I prefer to categorize them as
either unintelligent or badly educated. If it turns out, on
further analysis, that they are also Young Earth Creationists then
they are mostly idiots, not fanatics.
Larry Moran
and...@my-deja.com
There are no official "national standards" on this issue, so that
argument is simply a strawman. If you are referring to
recommendations of a private committee, then please provide background
about that committee so we can see if it is credible.
Evolutionists are bragging about their revisions to the Kansas
standards. They can't pass the buck now. If they can't defend the
substance of their revisions -- and the removal of "falsification" to
promote evolution is indefensible -- then they should admit it.
Laurence A. Moran
Here's an example,
"My pastor tells me that evolution violates the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. Is this true?"
The correct answer could result in considerable embarrassment for
the student and the credibility of his pastor would be challenged.
Under these circumstances, it's better for the teacher to suggest
that this question could be answered outside of class. The idea is
to avoid embarrassing the Creationists in science classes. They
get more than enough embarrassment in their other classes.
Larry Moran
Roger Schlafly
> for an example of empirical evolutionary biology see francis ayala's
> webpage at UCAL irvine..something roger ignores...
I ignore most web pages. Life is too short to read them all. Why
don't you at least post the URL if you think the page is worth
looking at.
Roger Schlafly
> > What "embarassing questions" would they be?
> jewish, was asked by a child if jesus preceded the
> big bang. (so her answer to that question should
> be clear) her answer to the child was "some people think so".
News to me. I thought that Jesus was born 2000 years ago.
> i for one would think a standard like the one roger complains
> about, which explicitly states that such a question is to
> be referred back to the parents is preferable to such an
> answer.
For sure, esp. if she doesn't know the answer.
Roger Schlafly
Roger Schlafly
> > Well, it is the evolutionists who want to get rid of "falisification"
> > being taught in Kansas.
> I know that the standards in Kansas were in part revised because of
> their prior stance towards evolution. But what's the evidence that
> *all* the changes were due to this concern? If you look at the
> "Acknowledgement of Prior Work" section of the document, you'll see
> that they're claiming that the standards are in substantial agreement
> wiht national standards. The entire section is new to this version of
> the document. Hence some of the changes could be due to making the
> standards more congruent with national standards. Why should we think
> that any particular change in the document has to do with evolution at
> all?
Some of the changes are minor changes in grammar or wording. But all
of the substantive changes reflect a Darwinian-Leftist ideology.
The ideology requires that:
1. Evolution be defined as a tautology.
2. Evolution explains all life on Earth.
3. Science be redefined to include evolution and exclude alternatives.
4. The above is taught to all students.
5. No dissent is tolerated.
Nearly all of the substantive changes appear to be written to further
these goals.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>sarah clark wrote:
>> > What "embarassing questions" would they be?
>> when my daughter's kindergarden teacher, who happens to be
>> jewish, was asked by a child if jesus preceded the
>> big bang. (so her answer to that question should
>> be clear) her answer to the child was "some people think so".
>
>News to me. I thought that Jesus was born 2000 years ago.
gee thats gonna come as news to the bible believing folks. for a
biblical text which contradicts roger, see the gospel of john, chapter
1.
>
>> i for one would think a standard like the one roger complains
>> about, which explicitly states that such a question is to
>> be referred back to the parents is preferable to such an
>> answer.
>
>For sure, esp. if she doesn't know the answer.
>
she's jewish. what answer should she have given?
Adam Marczyk
news:3A69CEC8...@my-dejanews.com...
> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> > well, of course, both you and your brother are lying. here's what the
> > standards say regarding falsifiability and criticism of theories:
> >
> > > History and Nature of Science
> > > Understanding the history, nature of science and limitations
> > > of science is fundamental to scientific learning. Students
> > > will learn to distinguish between science and other forms of
> > >knowledge or beliefs such as philosophy and religion. Science uses
> > >observation, experimentation, induction and deduction,
> > > and experimental, observational and statistical verification
> > >strategies in formulating and testing the validity of explanations
> > > for the behavior of the world around us. These explanations ought to
be
> > > testable, repeatable, falsifiable, open to criticism
> > > and not based upon authority.
>
> No, that is what the old standard said. That paragraph has been lined
> out in the new standard. See:
> http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
>
> that students are to just accept what the teacher says about the
> domain of science:
>
> of natural science"
Makes perfect sense to me. Creationism is indeed outside the domain of
science, since it is a religious belief.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Adam Marczyk
> Eros wrote:
> > > > The Theory of Evolution on the other hand could easily be
falsified...
> > > So why are the pro-evolution folks so eager to remove "falsification"
> > > from the curriculum?
> > They're not! Instead of perpetuating silly rumours, why don't you go
away
> > and read the Kansas Board of Education document for yourself. Adam
Marczyk
> > already has, and here is what he said in a previous post;-
>
> Are you just taking his word for it? Even wf...@ptd.net, who calls me a
> liar at every opportunity, has conceded that I am right and Adam is
> wrong about this. See the new standard:
> http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.htm
I concede he's right as well. Those paragraphs I quoted were struck through;
my browser apparently just doesn't support that. My mistake.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
hey roger...you're just practicing revisionism. since the context of
the kansas standards is that of recapturing science from the lunatic
fringe, its obvious there are lunatics for whom such questions (like
creationism) have meaning. and teachers shouldnt be fighting parents
for control of their children in this context. i know you're
intellectually dishonest, being a creationist sputnik, but DO try to
keep up with the thread...
thanks.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
arent you the one who complained that scientists dont post enough of
their work on the web?
double standard, perhaps?
Laurence A. Moran
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> for an example of empirical evolutionary biology see francis ayala's
>> webpage at UCAL irvine..something roger ignores...
>
>I ignore most web pages. Life is too short to read them all.
You don't read books and you don't read web pages? Where *do* you
get your information? From your mother?
Larry Moran
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Dave Sandborg wrote:
>> > Well, it is the evolutionists who want to get rid of "falisification"
>> > being taught in Kansas.
>> I know that the standards in Kansas were in part revised because of
>> their prior stance towards evolution. But what's the evidence that
>> *all* the changes were due to this concern? If you look at the
>> "Acknowledgement of Prior Work" section of the document, you'll see
>> that they're claiming that the standards are in substantial agreement
>> wiht national standards. The entire section is new to this version of
>> the document. Hence some of the changes could be due to making the
>> standards more congruent with national standards. Why should we think
>> that any particular change in the document has to do with evolution at
>> all?
>
>Some of the changes are minor changes in grammar or wording. But all
>of the substantive changes reflect a Darwinian-Leftist ideology.
>The ideology requires that:
>
>1. Evolution be defined as a tautology.
meaningless generalization, vague as always, from roger. neither he,
nor andy, has done lab work to understand empiricism.
>2. Evolution explains all life on Earth.
>3. Science be redefined to include evolution and exclude alternatives.
>4. The above is taught to all students.
>5. No dissent is tolerated.
roger is plainly lying about 5. for example the new standards state:
>
>Inquiry is central to science learning. These standards call for more
> than “science as a process,” in which students
>learn discrete skills such as observing, inferring, and experimenting.
>When engaging in inquiry, students describe objects and events, ask questions,
> construct explanations, test those explanations against current scientific
>knowledge, and communicate their ideas to others.
its the part about TESTING, and ASKING QUESTIONS that has roger
confused. creationists do neither.
Boikat
>
> sarah clark wrote:
> > > What "embarassing questions" would they be?
> > when my daughter's kindergarden teacher, who happens to be
> > jewish, was asked by a child if jesus preceded the
> > big bang. (so her answer to that question should
> > be clear) her answer to the child was "some people think so".
>
> News to me. I thought that Jesus was born 2000 years ago.
To some people, "Jesus" and "God" are one and the
same. Or didn't you know that?
>
> > i for one would think a standard like the one roger complains
> > about, which explicitly states that such a question is to
> > be referred back to the parents is preferable to such an
> > answer.
>
> For sure, esp. if she doesn't know the answer.
What answer would you have given?
Boikat
Boikat
Ah. From that perspective, I see what
"embarrassing questions" Roger was referring to.
Boikat
Boikat
From andy. This begs the question.....
Boikat
>
> Larry Moran
Adam Marczyk
> Dave Sandborg wrote:
> > > Well, it is the evolutionists who want to get rid of "falisification"
> > > being taught in Kansas.
> > I know that the standards in Kansas were in part revised because of
> > their prior stance towards evolution. But what's the evidence that
> > *all* the changes were due to this concern? If you look at the
> > "Acknowledgement of Prior Work" section of the document, you'll see
> > that they're claiming that the standards are in substantial agreement
> > wiht national standards. The entire section is new to this version of
> > the document. Hence some of the changes could be due to making the
> > standards more congruent with national standards. Why should we think
> > that any particular change in the document has to do with evolution at
> > all?
>
> Some of the changes are minor changes in grammar or wording. But all
> of the substantive changes reflect a Darwinian-Leftist ideology.
> The ideology requires that:
>
> 1. Evolution be defined as a tautology.
You're making this part up.
> 2. Evolution explains all life on Earth.
It _does_ explain all life on Earth. Or did you have an example of some
lifeform it can't explain?
> 3. Science be redefined to include evolution and exclude alternatives.
It's not "redefining" science. There _is_ no scientific alternative to
evolution.
> 4. The above is taught to all students.
As it should be.
> 5. No dissent is tolerated.
Dissent will be tolerated when there is a valid scientific alternative. But
there isn't, and schools are places to learn, not to debate. If creationists
want a real debate over whether evolution is correct, they should try the
peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> Nearly all of the substantive changes appear to be written to further
> these goals.
>
--
PZ Myers
> In article <3A69AD8D...@bellsouth.net>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > sarah clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > >
> > > > The main change in that section was replacing:
> > > > No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a
> > > > current science theory should be censored. [1999]
> > > >
> > > > with:
> > > > If a student should raise a question in a natural
> > > > science class that the teacher determines to be
> > > > outside the domain of science, the teacher should
> > > > treat the question with respect. The teacher should
> > > > explain why the question is outside the domain of
> > > > natural science and encourage the student to discuss
> > > > the question further with his or her family and other
> > > > appropriate sources. [2000]
> > > > http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/sciencewcompchanges.
> > > > htm
> > > >
> > > > That is a change to eliminate dissent.
> >
> > You mean a change that makes it easier to stay on the
> > subject of science in a science class, and not disrupting it
> > just to let some self-righteous religious fanatic (coached
> > by adults) squink their religious views, or worse, preach,
> > while other kids are trying to get a real education??? Wow!
> > What a concept!
>
> Some t.o oldtimers apparently think that anyone who disagrees
> with them is a "creationist" or religious fanatic.
This isn't true. A lot of idiots disagree with me who are *not*
creationists.
> Question evolution -- you must be a religious fanatic coached
> by adults!!!
Again, not true. I pretty much assume that people who question
evolution are either a) totally clueless and ignorant (the vast
majority of the cases), with no presumption by me about their
religion, or b) are trying to make a more sophisticated point.
Everyone I know who works on evolutionary biology is questioning
lots of bits and pieces of evolution. It's part of the job.
>
> > > excuse me, how does it eliminate dissent to point a
> > > religious question back to the parents? what would you
> > > suggest instead?
>
> What the prior standard states: "No evidence or analysis of
> evidence that contradicts a current science theory should be
> censored." But apparently evolutionists need such censorship
> in the classroom just to survive.
Really? Where? What is this evidence that would squash evolution?
--
PZ Myers