Skepticism and science education
LisaKay
Have any of you had similar experiences?
Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
story.)
Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
up.
What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
-LisaKay
aa #2054
L. Raymond
>Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
>Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
>Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
>mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
>is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
>voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
>of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
>opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
>motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
>theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
>story.)
My feeling is we are seeing the fruits of the fundies' efforts to
discredit science. They have to do that in order to elevate religion,
since in a well-educated society people simply will not buy into their
nonsense.
The Center for Inquiry, which is connected to CSICOP, is having a
conference in April about "Defending Science and Reason in an
Irrational World"; I expet the entire thing to be devoted to the
problem you've mentioned.
(Just to plug the conference, it's being held in Austin, TX April 24
& 25 and the fee is $50.00.)
--
L. Raymond
Randy Story
"LisaKay" <LisaK...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.04033...@posting.google.com...
> Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
>
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age of the
earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure half lifes with
something we know to be many billions of years old. If the original creative
or natural act of the universe coming to be already contained elements that
were not pure in nature but compounds then half lifes are meaningless.
Uranium lead isotopes or potassium argon isotopes may have been that way
from the very moment of creation, if so then trtying to date with these
methods are bogus.
Alan Jeffery
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:106mtu8...@corp.supernews.com...
Alan Jeffery
>
>
> > What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> > youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> > a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> > don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> > medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
> >
> > Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> > the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> > problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> > evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> > that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> > teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> > species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> > causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
> >
> > -LisaKay
> > aa #2054
> >
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 1/03/2004
Randy Story
"Alan Jeffery" <observa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3dLac.1295$d%6.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Then enlighten me please. I may no know all the jargon but I believe the
assumptions that dating methods are based on are quite bogus. Maybe you
should look at the island of Surtsey as an example.
Alan Jeffery
From what I have been able to learn about the 'Merican education system, you
folks don't teach science very well. Primary school science here is taught
by asking questions, and finding answers, in the field. If you like, a
gentle intro to the scientific method.
Secondary science tends to be more "factoid" based, but even then there is
an emphasis on asking questions and understanding how the answers are
arrived at. The emphasis is, throughout, and when possible, learning by
doing, not just remembering facts. You can check this website out for more
info. http://www.tki.org.nz/e/community/ncea/resources.php click on
whichever subject takes your fancy. I'm not saying everything is rosy by
the way. We have our fair share of post-modernists, woo woos, and
fundamentalists
Mind you, something like 30% of NZers are either atheists or agnostics.
Alan Jeffery
Alan Jeffery
it. Here is a link you could have found for yourself if you had been
sincere about being enlightened.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html
Alan Jeffery
Vic Sagerquist
> It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
> of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
> half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
> the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
> already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
> then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
> argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
> creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
fantasyland there, Randy.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Plonked by Angelicusrex 2/24/04
______________
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day.
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
--Timothy Jones
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
<snip>
Uh, why do all the old-earth anti-evolution creationists think that
young-earth scientific arguments are all full of shit?
Is it because of their godless atheistic biases?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Randy Story wrote:
> Then enlighten me please. I may no know all the jargon but I believe the
> assumptions that dating methods are based on are quite bogus.
Uh, why don't old-earth anti-evolution creationists, or intelligent
deisgn theorists, think so . . . . . .
And why on earth should anyone care about your uninformed opinion on the
matter anyway? Are you speaking on behalf of God or something?
Frank Reichenbacher
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
>
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
>
> What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence?
I'm a little puzzled Lisa. Aren't you in a better position to know the
answers to these questions than just about anyone? Do you teach what science
means? Do you teach what the scientific method is? Are you showing the kids
the evidence?
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
Hey Lisa, here's your problem. It's not teachers, or society in general.
It's the willful blindness of the dogmaitc fundamentalist.
Randy, dude. How'd you manage to get through school (you seem to be
relatively literate) without learning a bloody thing about the way science
works.
Maybe Lisa and Randy could get together and answer each other's questions.
Frank
Patrick James
(in article <106n0fb...@corp.supernews.com>):
> Then enlighten me please.
Certainly. For one thing, one of several methods of determining the age of
the earth depends on the way that radioactive substances behave. The _same_
theories behind that method are _also_ behind the _observed_ fact that the
sun is a thermonuclear reactor and that nuclear power plants and nuclear
bombs work. In other words, one of three things is true:
1 current theory wrt radioisotopes is correct
2 there is a better theory which explains how and why radioisotopes work, we
just don't know it yet
3 nuke bombs don't work, and neither do nuke power plants or the sun.
Given that we have empirical evidence that nuke power plants and nuke bombs
work and the sun seems to be kicking neutrinos after all, option 3 is a
non-starter.
Option 2 is more promising... but any new theory will have to explain
observations reaching back to the days of Becquerel and the Curies.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity>. That's over a hundred years of
data, some of which was quite spectacular.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_test>. The established timeline for the
age of the earth is about 4.5 thousand million years. This is just under six
orders of magnitude larger than the 6000 or so years advocated by many
young-earth creationists. It would take a really major change in the theory
to account for that. If you think that you can get option 2 to break the YEC
way, by all means go for it. There's a Nobel prize awaiting you.
Option 1 is, well, not what you want.
Another method for determining the age of the earth depends on the same
theories which say why lightbulbs work. Again, there are three choices:
1 current theory wrt electromagnetic fields is correct
2 there is a better theory which explains how and why emag fields work, we
just don't know it yet
3 light bulbs don't work.
Light bulbs appear to work; I'm looking at one now, in so far as a cathode
ray tube monitor is essentially a specialised light bulb. Option 3 is out.
Emag theory goes back to Newton. Einstein got his Nobel for work on emag
theory (the photoelectric effect, specifically, and not for relativity) and a
case can be made for saying that emag field theories are the most important
aspects of physics and have been since the mid-19th century. A _lot_ of very
bright people have worked on emag theory. It is possible that they're all
wrong. It's not likely. There's another Nobel prize awaiting anyone who does
that kind of major change to emag theory.
> I may no know all the jargon
And yet you know enough to dismiss the work of professionals in the field,
professionals over a period of a century and more.
> but I believe the
> assumptions
Name these assumptions.
> that dating methods are based on are quite bogus.
State why you think they are bogus. Be specific. Supply evidence, or at least
pointers to where we can get this evidence. If you don't want to collect at
least _two_ Nobel prizes, I certainly do.
> Maybe you
> should look at the island of Surtsey as an example.
Plate tectonics at work. So what? <http://www.zen24203.zen.co.uk/surtsey/> In
particular please note "The discovery of an eruption came as no surprise to
Icelandic geologists, as Iceland was itself formed by volcanic activity".
Next.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Dale
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
People know that smart people are often skeptical, and they want to appear
to be smart, so they try to be skeptical too. Being skeptical of what
supposedly smart people say makes you even smarter than they are!
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
This is undoubtedly so. Most creationists seem to take a look at a few
"facts" given to them by other creationists, and believe that this little
bit can overturn the whole of the biological sciences. It's obvious they
have not the slightest inkling of the immense depth of science, how science
is built up layer upon layer, year after year. The time of the beginning of
life on Earth is now determined to 4 decimal places. When I was a kid, it
wasn't even known to one decimal place. Most people have no understanding of
what that means about the intellectual honesty of researchers and about the
rigor of the scientific method.
> What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
I don't think you can show them all the evidence. Hell, I don't know even a
tiny fraction of the evidence. But I do know a couple of things in detail,
and that detail is what informs my scant knowledge of the rest. For example,
I know how the age of a star is determined, or did at one time. What
impresses me most about that is that it's like a detective story, where one
fact supports another in an inexorable chain of logic. Hmm...not such a good
metaphor. And I know how radiometric dating works for a variety of elements.
To me, knowing one or two things like this in great detail is the basis for
a deeper understanding of all of science. It gives me an example of how
science works, and it gives me a framework for organizing all the rest of
the scattered things I know about science.
johac
LisaK...@hotmail.com (LisaKay) wrote:
The problem is that the antiscience crowd is getting a lot of press
these days. The kids hear this, or hear their parents discussing it, or
if religious, from their clergymen.their minds are made up before they
even take a serious science class.
If you teach science you have probably seen the site put up by The UCMP
at Berkeley:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Perhaps you should have the kids take a look at it too. It explains many
of the terms such as theory, hypothesis, evidence, proof, etc. It also
describes how the scientific method works. Although the site is designed
primarily for teachers, HS students should have no trouble comprehending
it.
As far as their attitudes towards science, perhaps you could arrange to
have them talk to a scientist. I'm sure that it might be possible to get
someone from a local university, industry, or a government lab, to give
a short presentation on how scientists work and cover some topics as
designing experiments, reviewing data, publishing, the peer review
process, etc. They could also talk about what it means to work in
science, the joys, the frustrations, the effort, The thrill of seeing an
experiment work out the way that you predicted, etc. I'm a chemist who
has been in the field for over 35 years now, mostly in industrial
biotech labs. I would love to talk to the kids if the opportunity were
to present it self, and I'm sure that others would too.
I'm rambling, but these are just some ideas.
> -LisaKay
> aa #2054
>
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Thomas P.
You are such an incredible boob.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Randy Story
"Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
>
> > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
> > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
> > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
> > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
> > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
> > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
> > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
> > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
>
> Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
> already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
> fantasyland there, Randy.
Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
Randy Story
"Patrick James" <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC910BD7...@enews.newsguy.com...
Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I do
understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light bulbs. Th
problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok at the uranium
lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years and therefore
when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we calculate
the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to be
over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this sample
and of course it was bogus.
Randy Story
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:o8hn60dpfappdhkq1...@4ax.com...
Why, because you cant answer back rationality. Tell me why this is not
possible.
>
Kronk
(LisaKay) wrote:
>Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
>Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
>Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
>mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
>is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
>voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
>of science.
Skepticism is an extremely healthy thing when it comes to science. I
would urge you not to discourage it. The important thing is to teach
your students how to be logical and critical with their skepticism.
>More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
>opinion, etc).
That may or may not be bad. You don't include enough information.
What matters is that the skepticism of the source be proportional to
the importance placed on the information. If I ask co-worker Bob what
he did on Sunday, and he says he had an enjoyable round of golf, I can
accept that at face value without any further investigation. If I ask
murder suspect Bob what he was doing at the time of the murder, and he
says he was playing a round of golf, I would be negligent if I did not
check it out and make sure there was totally independent and reliable
verification of that claim. In teaching the importance of skepticism,
you also have to teach the value of proportionality.
>Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
>method?
No.
>I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
>accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
>in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
>educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
>up.
>
>What are we missing?
If you have access to a decent library, I'm going to suggest a couple
of books.
First, for a critical look at the issues involved with teaching about
science and how science actually works, I highly recommend H. Bauer's
"Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method". And
second, for an examination of the problem of distinguishing good
science from junk science, Bob Park's "Voodoo Science" is insightful
and rather entertaining. I think you'll find both books have much
material relevant to your questions here.
(And if your favorite library also has Bronowski's "Science and Human
Values" that's a good one if you ever need to be reminded why the
subject you teach is an important one.)
>As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
>youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
>a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
>don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
>medicine ASAP,
Yes, but without the critical tools to determine which is best, many
people wind up going to Chiropractors, Homeopathists, Accupuncturists,
and a multitude of other quacks. Your students have every right to
want the best, but they are going to need powers of critical thinking
if they are ever going to find it.
>but they call evolution "just a theory"!
For that one, they are just repeating what they've been taught.
Remember that you aren't their only teacher.
>Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
>the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
>problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
>evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
>that during the 12 years we educate our kids?
You can't. Hit the juicy and fun topics and make them want to learn
more, and teach them the difference between robust evidence and flimsy
evidence, and you'll have done plenty. They can take it from there.
>We would have to stop
>teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
>species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
>causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
For your situation, I think teaching science that your kids will love
*is* the big picture.
Kronk
Patrick James
(in article <106nhuk...@corp.supernews.com>):
I answered it. You merely didn't understand the answer.
> Lets juslok at the uranium
> lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years
ah... which isotope of uranium has a half-life of 50k? There are 14 isotopes
of uranium listed in my copy of the Rubber Handbook. None of them are listed
as having a half-life of 50k. U-238, the most common isotope (99.275% of
naturally occurring uranium is U-238) has a half-life of 4.51 thousand
million years. This is _substantially_ above 50k... and is pretty close to
the age of the earth itself. (Note: some uranium isotopes have half-lives
measured in days or minutes; U-227 undergoes alpha decay in 1.3 minutes,
U-230 also undergoes alpha decays in 20.8 days. This means that there ain't
no more of those isotopes in nature, except where they're formed as decay
products from something else. U-235 has a half-life of 710 million years, and
makes up 0.72% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world today in part
because, well, a lot of what was there ain't around no more 'cause ti's
decayed! U-235 is rather important, 'cause that's what's used to make
reactor fuel! The Hiroshima bomb was also a U-235 device! U-238 couldn't be
used 'cause it won't bloody well blow up! The 'depleted uranium' projectiles
used by many American anti-tank guns are basically U-238!)
> and therefore
> when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
> the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
> the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we calculate
> the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
> similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
> The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
No, it does not. You check the sample for _two_ things: how much of the
original isotope is there (and it does _not_ have to be 'pure', whatever that
means) and how much of the decay products of the isotope are there. U-238 has
three main modes of decay: alpha decay (about 77% of the time) and two types
of spontaneous fission (one about 23% of the time, and one about 0.23% of the
time) and the decay products for all three modes are known from observation.
> meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
> cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
> decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
this is incorrect. You have the wrong idea about how half-lives work. There
is absolutely _no_, zero, requirement that the original sample be pure. In
fact, it is _impossible_ that the original sample of certain substances be
pure, because there's this little thing called a 'critical mass'. If the
original samples of certain isotopes were pure, and larger than about 10-15
kilos (varies depending on the isotope) we would have a crater and fission
products, because it would explode. If it were slightly less pure, we would
have a open-air nuclear reactor. There are the remains of _several_ natural
nuke reactors at at least one site: Oklo.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo>.You don't seem to understand that _we
have the data showing that uranium has been in the earth's crust for a very
long time_.
> The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
> apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to be
> over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this sample
> and of course it was bogus.
Hint: there's a _reason_ why K-Ar testing isn't used on certain items, it's
_known to give incorrect results when used incorrectly!_ _Of course_ it's
gonna test at more than 2 thousand million years old when applied to volcanic
rock! Only someone who has no clue about how isotopic testing works would
expect anything different! Your problem is that you don't know enough about
the subject to know _why_ you can't use certain tests on certain objects...
but that's why there are _multiple_ types of testing!
I repeat: if you have actual facts, evidence, which can show that the
theories behind radiodating and emag theory are incorrect, please show them.
I'd like to go get two Nobel prizes. Possibly more, as anything which steps
on radioactivity and emag theory will have implications for chemistry as
well. You don't seem to understand: _everything is tied together_.
Mike Dworetsky
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:106ni3i...@corp.supernews.com...
I would have done this only if I were a professional charlatan and con
artist. More like a dodgy fake antiques dealer, artificially creating the
appearance of age.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Mike Dworetsky
These are commonly repeated creationist arguments and they are wrong. It is
not necessary to make any assumptions about the amount of daughter product
in the initial sample to get a date. Real scientists use a method called
isochron dating which allows for different proportions of parent and
daughter in the original sample at age = 0. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
This method is extremely difficult to fool. If several samples from the
same source give results that fall along the line in the graph, then they
began their decay at the same time. If they scatter all over the place,
then we know the sample is contaminated.
As for K-Ar giving apparent old ages from fresh lava, what is the reference
for your assertion? Usually, the K-Ar age is too low for heated materials
when compared to the Rb-Sr age. A geologist would not need to test the age
of fresh lava using radiometric methods. Presumably the tests were being
conducted on mineral inclusions, which might have remained solid while being
transported through the mantle, but if you could state where you obtained
this information then we could check it. It would be possible for some
rocks to have great age even if embedded in lava, provided their melting
point is higher than that of the magma.
Perhaps someone with more expertise could jump in here.
Patrick James
(in article <106ni3i...@corp.supernews.com>):
And you can prove that this alleged creation didn't take place last Tuesday,
and we're all walking around with implanted memories of life before then,
how?
Patrick James
(in article <106ni7a...@corp.supernews.com>):
You've been told. You've elected to ignore the answer.
Fred Stone
Yes, in fact we *can* know that, because the crystal structure of the
mineral in which the elements are found would exclude the decay products
that are found in place.
> The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
> apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found
> to be over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in
> this sample and of course it was bogus.
>
And that's a lie.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> Lets juslok at the uranium
> lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years
It was already pointed out that this is wrong, but the exact number
isn't important for the point you try to make, so I'll accept this
number for now.
> and therefore
> when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
> the samples,
Did you want to say "uranium to lead" here?
> lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
> the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we calculate
> the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc.
No. That would be a possibility, but it's *not* the method used in
general. Precisely because geologists *know* the problems you mention
below.
> Potassium argon methods work in
> similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
> The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
> meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
> cant know that.
1) For Potassium-argon methods, the assumption that their was no decay
product there is quite sensible - because argon is a *gas*, which can
easily leave the melted rocks (lava, magma), and hence there is no
argon in the rock when it solidifies.
2) Even if this assumption isn't justified, one can still use isochron
dating.
> If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
> decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
Right. Completely right. But why do you think you are the first one
who ever had this idea? Geologists thought about this for decades and
invented methods which give the age totally independent of the
original amount of decay product in the rock. The most famous one is
"isochron dating".
<http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html>
There are also other methods, i.e. "concordia-discordia", but for
those, I unfortunately don't know any good links. But you could try
looking into Dalrymple's book "The age of the earth", where he
extensively discusses radioactive dating.
> The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
> apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to be
> over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this sample
> and of course it was bogus.
Please provide a reference to the relevant paper - or tell us where
you otherwise got this information from.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age of the
> earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure half lifes with
> something we know to be many billions of years old.
I have no clue at all what this is supposed to mean. Could you elaborate, please?
> If the original creative
> or natural act of the universe coming to be already contained elements that
> were not pure in nature but compounds then half lifes are meaningless.
This, too, makes no sense. Why on earth do you think so?
> Uranium lead isotopes or potassium argon isotopes may have been that way
> from the very moment of creation,
What do you mean by "that way", exactly?
> if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
Why?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Even if we accept Genesis as literal (why should we?): That the humans
are full-grown was necessary - babies don't survive very well on their
own, and even children wouldn't have been able to react properly to
God's wishes (e.g. naming all the animals, understanding God'S
commandments etc.). That the tree were full grown was also necessary -
Adam and Eve needed fruits to eat (see God's own commandment!)
But why on earth should it have been necessary to create the rocks
"full grown", i.e. with decay products already in them??? Or to create
the star light "full grown", i.e. create light from stars which didn't
(and most don't even today) exist???
Also, try reading this page:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep01.html>
And, last, please notice that even Answers in Genesis doesn't like the
"light created on its way"-idea:
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp>
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> I may no know all the jargon but I believe the
> assumptions that dating methods are based on are quite bogus.
Please tell us what you believe these assumptions to be. Hint: "there
was no decay product in the rock when it formed" is *not* one of the
assumption used in the most commonly used method (isochron dating).
> Maybe you should look at the island of Surtsey as an example.
Maybe you should give us a reference to the relevant article where
this was discussed.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Wakboth
> "Patrick James" <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BC910BD7...@enews.newsguy.com...
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:33:39 -0500, Randy Story wrote
> > (in article <106n0fb...@corp.supernews.com>):
> >
> The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
> meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
> cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
> decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
This is the old "appearance of age" thing. If applied to a personal
Creator, it makes that creator dishonest and intending to deceive,
which is usually not what's wanted. Also, if you assume that the world
was created, say, six thousand years ago, but made to look like it's
four and half billion years old, what prevents the world having been
made Last Tuesday, with all the people given false memories?
-- Wakboth
MarkA
> Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
>
You need to emphasize that the scientists who come up with these theories
are, themselves, a skeptical lot, and the theories they produce are
therefore highly reliable. People who are not familiar with the *methods*
of science don't appreciate how much hard work goes into developing a
scientific theory, and how many attempts to shoot it down it must survive
before it is accepted, even tentatively. My favorite description of the
process is Alvarez's book, _T. Rex and the Crater of Doom_, which outlines
the development of the asteroid-impact theory of dinosaur extinction.
I believe that a lot of the sense that science is wrong, and junk-science
is right, is media-driven. Someone on this very newsgroup said it best:
mysticism is for people who want to understand the universe, but are too
lazy to study physics.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Robibnikoff
You don't actually believe this hooey, do you?
How old are you? Five?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Randy Story wrote:
> Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I do
> understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light bulbs. Th
> problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok at the uranium
> lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years and therefore
> when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
> the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
> the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we calculate
> the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
> similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
> The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
> meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
> cant know that.
Creationist Problems with Radio-dating:
"Uranium minerals always exist in open systems, not closed. . .
Unless the system is known to have been a closed system through all the
ages since its formation, its age readings are meaningless." (Morris,
Scientific Creationism, 1974, pp 140-141)
As we have seen, determining the amount of "primordial" lead that was
present before radio-decay started is indeed a limiting factor in the
uranium-lead dating method. However, the use of lead-204 as a measuring
stick allows us to make a reasonably precise estimate of the amount of
original non-radiogenic lead, since the various isotopes are chemically
identical and always are moved at the same proportion. It is indeed
possible that enough lead may have entered or left the sample to throw
off the accuracy of the date by a few percent, and this is one of the
reasons why the uranium-lead method is no longer used. But even such an
error would not be enough to allow for the possibility of a 6,000 year
old earth. (Keep in mind that Morris is here arguing that enough lead
entered the system to change the apparent date from 6,000 years to
around 5 billion years, an error factor of almost a million percent.)
In any case, both the potassium-argon and the rubidium- strontium
methods present precise methods of determining the amount of radiogenic
daughter element, and the isochron method provides a precise method of
checking for contamination.
"An even more important phenomenon by which these balances can be
upset is that of 'free neutron capture', by which free neutrons in the
mineral's environment may be captured by the lead in the system to
change the isotopic value of the lead." (Morris, Scientific Creationism,
1974, p. 141)
While the capture of a neutron by an atomic nucleus is not impossible,
it is a rare process which usually happens only in the presence of a
large number of free neutrons (such as inside a nuclear reactor). There
is no evidence that neutron capture can alter the ratios of geologic
lead isotopes to any noticeable degree. Thus, capture of free neutrons
might cause the observed ratio to vary by a few tenths of a percent, but
certainly not near enough to produce such large errors as the
creationists are postulating.
An additional problem is that neutron radiation is lethal to life forms,
and a neutron flow large enough to produce the kinds of errors that the
creationists are postulating would have killed all life and sterilized
the planet long ago. The creationists have no explanation for how life
managed to survive their postulated neutron capture.
"The uranium decay rates may well be variable". (Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 1974, p. 142.
The entire method of radio-dating rests on the fact that the decay rates
of radioactive isotopes, their "half-life", is constant. If the decay
rate was faster or slower in the past than it is now, the entire method
becomes unreliable.
It is somewhat ironic that Morris attempts to use the argument that "the
decay rates might have changed over time" as a criticism of evolutionary
theory, since, according to an earlier chapter of his book, it is the
evolutionists who claim that the basic processes of nature have evolved
over time, while the creationists assert that none of the basic laws of
matter have ever changed:
"It seems obvious that the evolution model would predict that
matter, energy and the laws are still evolving since they must have
evolved in the past and there is no external agent to bring such
evolution to a halt." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 18)
"The creation model conversely supposes that the universe was
simply called into existence by the omnipotence, in accord with the
omniscience, of the Creator . . . The fact is, of course, all
observations that have been made to date confirm the straightforward
predictions of the creation model; namely, that the basic laws of nature
are constant and invariable, and that the basic nature of matter and
energy is likewise a constant. There is not as yet the slightest
observational intimation that these entities are evolving at all."
(Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, pp 17- 18)
Leaving aside for now the assertion that evolutionary theory predicts
that the laws of nature "are still evolving" (an assertion which has not
been made by ANY evolutionary scientist), we can see that Morris is
plainly trying to have it both ways. The radio- decay rates of an
element are determined by the strong and weak nuclear forces, which are
in turn regulated by the laws of quantum mechanics, one of the
most-verified of all scientific models. If radio-decay rates were
different in the past than they are now, as Morris suggests above, then
there must have been fundamental changes over time in quantum physics
and in the structure of matter. Yet, according to Morris, such a
fundamental evolution of natural laws has not taken place. On page 18 of
his book, he asserts that the evolutionists must be wrong because the
basic nature of matter (including, one presumes, quantum physics and the
structure of matter) hasn't changed over time; yet on page 142 he is
arguing that the evolutionists must be wrong because the basic nature of
matter (i.e., quantum physics and the structure of matter) HAS changed
over time. (Later, we will see the assertion that the speed of light,
another basic property of the universe, must also, according to the
creationists, have varied over time.) One wishes that Morris would at
least be consistent in his balderdash.
In any case, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that radio
decay rates might have differed in the past from their present values,
and there are several reasons from quantum mechanics why one would not
expect them to significantly vary at all. The strong and weak nuclear
forces which govern radio-decay are very powerful, but operate at only
very short distances (less than the diameter of an atomic nucleus). They
are not affected by temperature, pressure, magnetism, or any other known
physical phenomenon. Even under the most extreme environmental
conditions which can be produced in the lab, the decay rates of
radioactive elements have not been observed to vary by more than four
percent--Morris's hypothesis requires that these rates must have varied
by up to one million percent. Obviously, Morris's assertion that
radio-decay rates may have varied greatly in the past is completely
without foundation.
"The daughter elements were probably present from the beginning".
(Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 143)
As we have seen, estimating the amount of non-radiogenic or "primordial"
daughter element which was present before decay began is a problem
(though not an extremely large problem) with the uranium-lead method. In
the K-Ar and Rb-Sr methods, however, there are methods of precisely
determining the ratios of radio-element and radiogenic daughter element,
as well as ways to determine if the sample has been contaminated.
If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
> decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
> The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
> apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to be
> over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this sample
> and of course it was bogus.
I think you are referring to Hawaii and are just too uninformed to know
that it wasn't Surtsey:
"Modern rocks formed in 1801 near Hualalei, Hawaii, were found to
give potassium-argon ages ranging from 160 million years to 3 billion
years." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 147) "It would seem
that the only remaining virtue of potassium ages is that they often
yeild ages of millions and billions of years, and are therefore
generally compatible with the evolutionary model." (Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 1974, p. 148)
The implication here is that the potassium-argon method (and by
extension all other radio-dating methods) are wildly inaccurate and give
widely divergent dates, and that therefore evolutionary scientists
simply save the ages they like and toss out those they don't like.
In citing the Hawaii data, however, Morris typically neglects to mention
the whole story. Some of these tests were done on "pillow basalts" which
form during underwater volcanic eruptions.
It was suspected by geologists that dissolved argon gas from the
surrounding sea water might enter the newly emerged lava, and would not
be able to escape quickly enough to dissipate from the rock before it
cooled, and that therefore argon might become trapped inside the
potassium crystals. To test this, geologists selected an area of basalt
that was known to have formed during an eruption in 1801, and used the
K-Ar method to date the outer surface. The average date obtained was 22
million years, thus demonstrating that such rocks were indeed
contaminated and were not suitable for radio-dating. As geologist G.
Brent Dalrymple reported, "The purpose of these studies was to
determine, in a controlled experiment with samples of known age, the
suitability of submarine pillow basalts for dating, because it was
suspected that such samples might be unreliable . . . The results
clearly indicated that these rocks were unsuitable for dating, and so
they are not generally used for this purpose." (cited in Strahler, 1987,
p. 206)
The remaining tests were done on each of the islands in the Hawaiian
chain. And, since the Hawaiian Islands were formed several hundred
million years apart by volcanic eruptions and are not all the same age
(the large island of Hawaii is the youngest, and the islands become
progressively older as one travels west along the chain), it should not
be surprising that the radio-dates given for each island will differ
from the others.
Now answer my question: why do old-earth anti-evolution creationists
and intelligent design theorists like Behe each think that all of the
young-earth "scientific arguments" are full of shit.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Randy Story wrote:
>
>
> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
>
>
So God is a liar?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Randy Story wrote:
Why do old-earth anti-creationists and intelligent deisgn theorists
think every one of the young-earth "scientific arguments" is full of
shit. Are they all just irrational?
Richard Forrest
I had to read back through the posting history to double-check on
whether or not you are serious. You are, aren't you?
So omphalism raises its quaint head again (also know as
last-thursday-ism). Okay, you got me on that one. I can think of no
way of proving that the world was not created 6,000 years ago (or last
Thursday for that matter) with all the appearance of an ancient
history.
Two issues:
Why should God want to mislead us in this way?
And:
Even if it is the case, it's not very fruitful to pursue this line of
reasoning. You can end up inside your own head wondering if anything
exists at all except as a figment of your own imagination. As a theory
it is a dead end. It explains nothing, and provides no clues for how
to research the Universe. It makes the whole process of science a
complete waste of time.
RF
John Popelish
>
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
> > Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
> > already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
> > fantasyland there, Randy.
>
> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
What did the dirt look like?
--
John Popelish
John Popelish
> >Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> >grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
>
> You don't actually believe this hooey, do you?
>
> How old are you? Five?
There is no other believable explanation.
--
John Popelish
LisaKay
> "LisaKay" <LisaK...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1dbe2aec.04033...@posting.google.com...
> > Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> > Have any of you had similar experiences?
> >
> > Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> > mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> > is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> > voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> > of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> > opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> > motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> > theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> > story.)
> >
> > Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> > method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> > accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> > in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> > educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> > up.
> >
> > youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> > a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> > don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> >
> > Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> > the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence?
>
> answers to these questions than just about anyone? Do you teach what science
> means? Do you teach what the scientific method is? Are you showing the kids
> the evidence?
>
> Frank
>
Of course I do, but it seems to be something new to these kids. Like
they've never heard of radioactive decay, or evolution except from
their church (which condemns it, of course). I was hoping that there
would be some teachers or university profs around here. I'm
relatively new to the profession and very new to teaching evolution.
I'm just stunned at the lack of knowledge these kids have and the
amount of skepticism they have. Some of them really doubt we've been
to the moon!
-LisaKay
aa #2054
>
> The
> > problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> > evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> > that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> > teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> > species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> > causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
> >
> > -LisaKay
> > aa #2054
> >
Robibnikoff
Of course, my five-year-old would never buy this malarkey.
Seppo Pietikainen
So your god is conman and a charlatan? You worship something like *that*?
Seppo P.
stew dean
> LisaK...@hotmail.com (LisaKay) wrote:
>
> >Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> >Have any of you had similar experiences?
> >
> >Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> >mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> >is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> >voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> >of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> >opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> >motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> >theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> >story.)
>
> discredit science.
I wouldnt give them that much credit.
From an outsiders point of view I'd blame your rather right wing
biased media (the same media the right wingers of you country think
has a left wing bias - yeah right).
Also blame the exponents of dumb culture - sex in the city, friends,
that kind of thing. After all, kinda dumb is cool. Science? Leave that
to the discover channel, entertainment makes money and taxing you
brains we'll leave to low profit art house moves (which are usualy
just a different kind of dumb).
Boy am I in a cynical mood today.
Stew Dean
Morbert
bombs don't work, and neither do nuke power plants or the sun.
>
> Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I do
> understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light bulbs. Th
> problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok at the uranium
> lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years and therefore
> when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
> the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
> the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we calculate
> the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
> similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
Pb204 is not formed by decay... We take a sample that contains the 3
Pb isotopes (204,206,207)and measure the ratio between them. This
gives us an accurate benchmark. We then find samples of Pb and
Uranium (U238 and 235 decay to lead) And we get their ratios,
allowing us to use the formula
n = N*exp(-Lt). (n= current ratio) (N=benchmark) (L=decay rate)
t(=time)
These results are tested with amazing rigour, and compared to other
methods for consitency. If it's bogus, then all other methods are
bogus in sync... which makes no sense.
Morbert
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
> > One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
> >
> > > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
> > > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
> > > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
> > > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
> > > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
> > > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
> > > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
> > > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
> >
> > Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
> > already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
> > fantasyland there, Randy.
>
Erm... What about the records held within the light.... If the light
was created en route, then it was also created with false information
(Nova's Nebulae etc.) To accept what you say, we would have to deny
evidence. That's something that science just does not do.
>
> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
In otherwords... you cannot explain why light was created in such a
manner. What evidence do you have that points to the creation of
light en route? How can it be tested? Are there any hypotheses?
Choppped Liver
> Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
>
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
>
> What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
>
> -LisaKay
> aa #2054
I think you have hit on some of the major problems, expecially the fact that
we are not teaching what science actually is and how it works. But, in my
opinion as a layperson, I see a major factor for skepticism and mis-trust of
science in the popular press. When reporting on science news they almost
always get it wrong, miss the point or misrepresent the significance of the
findings. An example would be the headline (I'm makeing these up for
purposes of illustation) "Eggs Will Kill You", where the finding tend to
show a small percentage of earlier mortality from heart disease for white
males who eat 12 eggs or more per day. The following week a new headline
reads "Eat Eggs to Stay Healthy", in which a study finds that women aged 45
and older who eat three eggs a week have small percentage advantage in
neural responce over those who abstain completely.
This kind of reporting and the tendancy of most people to skim articles or
read headlines only leads to the typical question, "Why can't scientist make
up there minds if I should eat eggs or not?" Apply this situation to the
entire realm of science reporting and you get a situatution where people
either just don't pay attention any more or are very distrusting of any
scientifc matters they are exposed to.
However, getting back to your first suggestion - Are we not teaching what
"science" means? - I believe the answer is no. I think this is evidenced by
the recent insurgence of ID proposals being considered by school boards.
People who have a fundemental knowledge of what science is, what the methods
are, what it can and can't do, are less likely to be confused by popular
reporting and the pseudo-science tactics used by unscrupulous people for
political or commercial gain.
--
Charlie Watkins (Chopped Liver)
Frank Reichenbacher
Welcome to reality.
I am not a teacher, although I was a TA for pre-med track biology courses at
my graduate school university many moons ago. I too was amazed at the
alarming ignorance of my students. Believe me, I sympathisize with you.
I understand that the National Science Teachers Association, NSTA
(http://www.nsta.org/) is a tremendous resource for science teachers. Here
are links to their position statement on the nature of science and the
teaching of evolution:
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10
Both essays have bibliographic references at the end which maqy be of use to
you.
Frank
Eerie Smilodon of Unusual Size & Typing Ability
the darkest depths of
chaosnews:1dbe2aec.04033...@posting.google.com:
>
{snip}
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my
> husband, mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think
> that skepticism is a great quality to have and something we
> should encourage in the voting population. The problem I see is
> that they are most skeptical of science. More so than of other
> ways of knowing (religion, popular opinion, etc). The big
> problem with this is that they lack the motivation to research
> the evidence on which scientists base their theories. (Also the
> word theory is a problem, but that is another story.)
>
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the
> scientifically accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in
> a lab coat's guess, in the eyes of the average person. I feel
> like people who are not educated in science really believe that
> scientists just make this shit up.
>
> What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that
> our youth are missing out on how important and how serious and
> how useful a subject science is. The other thing that gets me
> is that people don't question science when it comes to medicine.
> They want the best medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just
> a theory"!
>
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching
> what the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the
> evidence? The problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the
> age of the earth, or evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How
> could we present all of that during the 12 years we educate our
> kids? We would have to stop teaching things like insect
> collection and naming whale or dinosaur species, or kinds of
> rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be causing us to miss
> the big picture. What do you think?
>
> -LisaKay
> aa #2054
>
--
Television pictures showed one incinerated body being kicked and
stamped on by a member of the jubilant crowd, while others dragged a
blackened body down the road by its feet.
Afterward, journalists reported seeing two bodies, one of them
headless, hanging by their feet from a bridge over the Euphrates
River as locals stoned them.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E4D19123-9DD3-11D1-B44E-
006097071264.htm
Boys with scarves over their faces hurled bricks into the burning
vehicles. A group of men dragged one of the smoldering corpses into
the street and ripped it apart. Someone then tied a chunk of flesh to
a rock and tossed it over a telephone wire.
"Viva mujahadeen!" shouted Said Khalaf, a taxi driver. "Long live the
resistance!"
Nearby, a boy no older than 10 put his foot on the head of a body and
said: "Where is Bush? Let him come here and see this!"
John Thomas Grisham
> Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
No offense, but taking the attitude that you're right and everyone
else is wrong may not be the best way to facilitate alleviating
skepticism. We live in a society where Einstein's 10 dimensional
universe and String Theory's 11 dimensional universe are largely
referenced in works of science and fiction. The Scientific Method in
all practicality is limited to 4 of those dimensions. No evidence is
ever going to be more than 40% applicable to the universe on the whole
and while that may be the most we can do, it's not the most we can
imagine. This is appropriate because science expands on what we have
to imagine.
>
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
>
Like fake feathered dinosaur fossils in China, exposed as fake, then
the same faker finds another feathered dinosaur fossil and science
accepts it as real? I know it's political and mostly about the Chinese
scientific community not "losing face", but shit happens. You're
assumption that it never does only magnifies the skepticism.
> What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
Medicine is one of the worst sciences, which is evident by it
validating Chiropratics, Acupuncture and Home Remedies in recent
years. The medical textbook human body is a general model.
Unfortunately, most people do not conform 100% to the textbook model.
The miracles of modern medicine fail because equipment and drugs are
used to force people to conform to a model that is nothing more than a
construct. The money drives the innovations and that money is in
equipment and drugs. In most cases, medicine has become a business,
it's not really a science at all.
> Are we not teaching what "science" means?
I'm a little afraid to ask what you think "science" means... It sounds
like it means the answer to all questions to you. Madonna's material
girl living in a material world is just the teensiest bit superfiscial
for most people.
> Are we not teaching what
> the scientific method is?
You're the teacher, aren't you! What? You haven't got 20 minutes to
teach it?
> Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids?
They had no problem teaching it in my school. There are videos!
> We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks.
Why would you have to stop? I sense you're speaking of pending changes
in some states, although you haven't previously said so. It shouldn't
frighten you that we don't know what will happen in those states,
changes occur over time, the solution will evolve!
> Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
Is that the current standard? Collect "X" amount of bugs. Name "Y"
amount of species. Identify "Z" amount of rocks. It does seem a little
narrow of a lesson plan.
JTG 4/1/04
>
> -LisaKay
> aa #2054
Kermit
> "Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> news:o8hn60dpfappdhkq1...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:50:30 +0000 (UTC), "Randy Story"
> > <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >news:1dbe2aec.04033...@posting.google.com...
> > >> Have any of you had similar experiences?
> > >>
> > >> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> > >> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> > >> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> > >> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> > >> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> > >> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> > >> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> > >> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> > >> story.)
> > >>
> > >> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> > >> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> > >> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> > >> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> > >> up.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> the
> > >earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure half lifes
> with
> > >something we know to be many billions of years old. If the original
> creative
> > >or natural act of the universe coming to be already contained elements
> that
> > >were not pure in nature but compounds then half lifes are meaningless.
> > >Uranium lead isotopes or potassium argon isotopes may have been that way
> > >from the very moment of creation, if so then trtying to date with these
> > >methods are bogus.
> > >
> >
>
>
> Why, because you cant answer back rationality. Tell me why this is not
> possible.
>
> >
He got so frustrated that he resorted to an insult. I quite
understand. Why haven't you responded to the substantive replies to
your assertions? It seems as though you are determined to be ignorant.
Do you think you win an argument by ignoring verifiable facts, or do
you perhaps think you will live forever if only you continue stopping
up your ears and singing "La la la! I can't hear you!"?
Kermit
David Wise
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
>
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
>
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
>
> aa #2054
My wife and I tend to view science as something of an integrated (or
integratable) whole, in which all the explanations have to fit
together which the entire "big picture". Our sons both grew up with
the same view of science. As a result, we all are interested in
science, which just makes a lot of sense. In a few cases, our sons'
interest in science had to be maintained in spite of their science
classes in school.
OTOH, my sister's son grew up learning science mainly in the
classroom. He hates science. To him, it's nothing but a lot of
unrelated facts that don't make any sense and that you have to
memorize. There was no big picture for him, not any integrated view.
<quote type=highly_pertinent>
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it
becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious,
but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the
Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher 35:125-129 (March 1973),
p. 129.
</quote>
Most of us are in this newsgroup because of "creation science" and its
political agenda attacking science education. But even without that
threat, there are problems in science education that need to be
addressed and remedied.
The textbooks are a problem, since they are mainly written by
non-scientists, are not reviewed by scientists for accuracy
(California's mid-80's experience illustrates this), and the
publishers have for decades been unduly influenced by pressure from
special interest groups, such as the anti-evolution movement.
In the mid 1980's, California was considering new biology textbooks.
William Bennetta, more recently of The Textbook League, convinced the
state board to allow a panel of scientists to review the books for
accuracy. All the books failed; none were deemed acceptable. One
publisher incorporated part of the long list of corrections and the
state board met in secret (ie, behind the scientists' backs) to
approve it. As a result, California's new textbook was still
unacceptably inaccurate, but at least it was marginally less so than
the others.
Not all science teachers are qualified to teach science; ie, they
don't understand it well enough themselves. Mind you, there are many
very good science teachers out there who do know the subject well.
Most of our sons' science teachers were very good, but there were a
few who were terrible. And the good and bad ones alike have to work
with textbooks that are inaccurate. The good ones can correct many of
the inaccuracies in class, but most won't know the difference.
Then there's the entire approach we take to teaching science: we tend
to present the conclusions of science but not HOW scientists had
reached those conclusions. That plays into the hands of the
anti-evolution and anti-science movements because it tends to cast
science as being arbitrary. Eg, just presenting lists of evidence for
the age of the earth and naming the techniques used for dating doesn't
teach HOW those techniques work, WHY they are accurate, nor IN WHAT
WAY that evidence DOES point us to the age of the earth that we
conclude it does.
I know that switching to such an approach would be a daunting task for
an individual teacher to take, especially since that is NOT how most
of the materials approach it. And considering the background
knowledge that would been needed to understand some portions of it
(eg, following the math and logic of how isochrons work). Added to
that, I'm sure, is the recent pressure to take away from actual
teaching in order to prepare the students for the goverment-mandated
exams (something which our younger son complained about) and which in
the case of science would test knowing unrelated facts and factoids
and not understanding the process of science. And not being a part of
the science educators community, I don't know whether there's a
movement afoot for teaching how the conclusions of science have been
arrived at, but I think that there should be.
There's my dos centavos. Apply salt as needed (ie, cum grano salis).
David Wise
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
> > One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
> >
> > > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
> > > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
> > > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
> > > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
> > > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
> > > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
> > > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
> >
> > already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
> > fantasyland there, Randy.
>
>
>
> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
Which is proof positive that God created the universe, all with the
false appearance of great age, LAST WEDNESDAY! (or was it Thursday?)
Including our false memories of past events that never happened.
Continuing a great navel tradition!
(Google on Omphalos)
Frank Reichenbacher
"John Thomas Grisham" <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1e9d6178.04040...@posting.google.com...
Lisa asked what you think and you respond with this? For the love of Mike,
give it a rest JTG.
Lisa, for what its worth, none of the rest of us (with the exception of our
fundie guest, Mr. Story), thought there was anything wrong with your post at
all. We, at least, completely understood your frustrations and concerns.
Frank
Dick C
> Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
What you are seeing is not really honest skepticism, but rather distrust
of science and non religious authority. Many people who seem to be
skeptical of science are that way because they have no idea of what science
is, and they doubt and distrust all forms of authority unless it comes
from their church.
The best way to counter this is with education, but the same people tend to
control the purse strings of the schools, and make loud noises when science
is taught, thus allowing the fear and distrust to build on itself.
True skepticism is willing to look for the answers, willing to look at the
evidence, and ultimately accept something when the evidence supports it.
The people you are commenting on generally are not willing to do so.
--
Dick #1349
Damn it . . . Don't you dare ask God to help me.
To her housekeeper, who had begun to pray aloud.
~~ Joan Crawford, actress, d. May 10, 1977
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
R.Schenck
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method?
Yes. People are taught it, they don't respect it, they forget it,
they never use it after they are taugt, and thus, don't know it.
> I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
Agreed.
>
> What are we missing?
Science Education
> As a science teacher,
Its your fault.
(j/k)
> I am concerned that our
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
Perhaps its because when people go to a doctor, he does his doctor
thing, they do what he tells them, and presto, they get better.
Doesn't require any understanding. If a vodoo doctor or 'magic
crystals' could heal with as high or higher a sucess rate than
scientific doctors, then I wouldn't be concerned about why (er, ok I
would but..), I would be going to them and getting better.
but 'science', writ large? When was the last time anyone 'used' it?
Unfortunately, every moment people use it. It has proven so effective
that it's used everywhere, for everything where results are wanted,
and, as a result of its ubuiquity, it goes unnoticed. Its truly a
victim of its own success. I wish that people who rejected science,
even if only wrt evolution, would not be able to start their cars, or
have to dodge all the airplanes that would be falling out of the sky,
or couldn't go to their church because, according to their
misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, everything goes to
disorder, so the church done went and fell 'erpart.
>
> Are we not teaching what "science" means?
Its seems to me, as an outsider to be sure, that the educational
curriculae push out theory and focus on facts. Teach the components
of a cell, or learn the photosynthetic reactions, but not the
reasoning that allows us to knwo why a cell is meaningful at al, or
why mitochondria have distinct dna and why that dna is similar to
bacterial dna or just what it means when a photon strikes a
photoreceptor and sets off an electron transport chain of sorts. IOW,
the science standards need to use Evolution (re. Darwin's Ideas and
such) as the -organizing- principle in biology, and -science- as the
organizing principle of, well, all education in general.
how can the modern american student (er, yeah, I assume that because
you are talking about a questionable educational system you -are-
talking about the american one) be expected to deal with the insanely
scientific and technological world without being able to make rational
decisions? Its absurd to think that they can without. How can a
student reject things like 'dialectical materialism' or 'homeopathic
medecine' or 'quantum bs' or even 'post-modern subjectivism' (or at
least the pop versions they will be subjected to anyways) without
being able to think rationally?
And yet, people don't understand that. They say, 'science is important
for scientists, not all kids are going to be scientists, there are
other sources of knowledge like feelings and religion anyway, and
whats most important is that the kids be able to read and write and do
math' (maths for you ferners...), and so, they think that we can't
have adequate science education because we have to focus on those
things.
In all honesty tho, I don't know how much there is to hope for in
terms of progress on that front. In NYC, the Mayor and some others
wanted to change the system so that 3rd graders (and below) had to
actually pass their grade before they could move on. They didn't want
3rd graders 'socially promoted' (and I wouldn't argue that social
promotion is meaningless or absolutely ineffecive) to the 4th grade if
they couldn't read. AND PEOPLE OPPOSED IT! There were people in
front of city hall ( or rather, i think it was wherever the board of
ed dept offices are) holding signs that said not letting their
children be socially promoted was, literally, 'denying them their
civil rights'!! Now, I would say that everyone has a Right to Good
Education, but no one has a right to passing. But that is literally
what this parent wanted. I also recall an 'article' in The Onion
(yes, still america's finest news source...) which, although a parody,
made a good point. It was supposed to be an editorial by some
slack-jawed local yokal moron, on poltics and voting, and the killer
line was something like 'There's a lot more parking spaces at the
monster truck rally than at the library'. And its true. So I dunno
what can be done about it.
er, [/rant]
snip
puppe...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 02:34:32 -0500, Randy Story wrote
> (in article <106ni3i...@corp.supernews.com>):
[snip]
> > Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> > grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
>
> and we're all walking around with implanted memories of life before then,
> how?
Thursday. It was created last Thursday. The name of the notion
is "last-Thursdayism."
Yes Randy. It was created to look *JUST* like it was old. With
fossils, and radioactive decay products, and diffusion effects,
and crystal lattice imperfections, and old starlight, and so on
and so on. It was created to look *JUST*EXACTLY* like it was old.
Yep. That's your loving god all-right-all-right.
Hey Yaweh! You don't have a belly button! Push your thumb in
and make one.
Socks
Thomas P.
<patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 02:36:30 -0500, Randy Story wrote
>(in article <106ni7a...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
>>
>> "Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
>> news:o8hn60dpfappdhkq1...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:50:30 +0000 (UTC), "Randy Story"
>>> <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "LisaKay" <LisaK...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1dbe2aec.04033...@posting.google.com...
>>>>> Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
>>>>> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
>>>>> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
>>>>> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
>>>>> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
>>>>> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
>>>>> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
>>>>> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
>>>>> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
>>>>> story.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
>>>>> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
>>>>> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
>>>>> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
>>>>> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
>>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age of
>> the
>>>> earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure half lifes
>> with
>>>> something we know to be many billions of years old. If the original
>> creative
>>>> or natural act of the universe coming to be already contained elements
>> that
>>>> were not pure in nature but compounds then half lifes are meaningless.
>>>> Uranium lead isotopes or potassium argon isotopes may have been that way
>>>> from the very moment of creation, if so then trtying to date with these
>>>> methods are bogus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are such an incredible boob>
>>
>>
>> Why, because you cant answer back rationality. Tell me why this is not
>> possible.
>
>You've been told. You've elected to ignore the answer.
Many people have taken the trouble to explain it to him in various
ways. He has no interest in learning. He prefers his distortions. I
don't really understand it, since it certainly has nothing to do with
Catholicism.
In a few months he will start all over again as if he never heard
anything.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Thomas P.
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
You have had it explained to you numerous times. You ignore the
explanations and continue to spout your idiocy. Even the church you
claim membership in does not promote such ignorance. No Randy you are
a very dishonest boob talking about matters you are totally and
delibrately ignorant of.
R.Schenck
snip
> I believe the
> assumptions that dating methods are based on are quite bogus.
Why do you beleive this?
>Maybe you
> should look at the island of Surtsey as an example.
Not familiar with this case, perhaps you could explain what it has to do with it?
snip
R.Schenck
snip
> From what I have been able to learn about the 'Merican education system, you
> folks don't teach science very well.
We do not have a national science curriculum. Our Schools are
entirely locally based. I think the highest form of mandatory
oversight is from the State, and even that would vary from state to
state. Hence, NY public schools are different from Alabama public
schools.
> Primary school science here is taught
> by asking questions, and finding answers, in the field. If you like, a
> gentle intro to the scientific method.
Everywhere in your country kids upto ~12 years old allways learn
science by being taken out of the schools and into the 'field'? Who
asks the questions and who decides what is the answer? Are the
students expected to re-create modern science on its own?
>
> Secondary science tends to be more "factoid" based, but even then there is
> an emphasis on asking questions and understanding how the answers are
> arrived at. The emphasis is, throughout, and when possible, learning by
> doing, not just remembering facts.
Hmmm, thats how most schools do it here too.
snip
> We have our fair share of post-modernists, woo woos, and
> fundamentalists
ahh, what would life be like without them....
snip
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I do
> understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light bulbs.
Th
> problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok at the
uranium
> lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years and therefore
> when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
> the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
> the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we
calculate
> the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
> similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
> The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
> meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
> cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
> decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
This may be the source of Randy's claims.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/time.htm
However, considering the incestuous nature of most Creationist claims, it
may have been from another site, either quoting from here, or the above site
got the claim from elsewhere.
> The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
> apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to
be
> over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this
sample
> and of course it was bogus.
This claim seems to be drawn from an article in "New Scientist", July 3rd.
1975 p. 20, according to Wilder's book. The claim is referenced in a
number of Creationist sites, but only the above site gives this reference.
DJT
>
>
>
Vic Sagerquist
>
>"Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
>> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
>>
>> > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
>> > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
>> > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
>> > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
>> > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
>> > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
>> > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
>> > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
>>
>> Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
>> already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
>> fantasyland there, Randy.
>
>
>
>Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
>grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
>
>
Yup. Just as if there was no god.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Plonked by Angelicusrex 2/24/04
______________
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day.
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
--Timothy Jones
Eerie Smilodon of Unusual Size & Typing Ability
darkest depths of
chaosnews:1dbe2aec.04033...@posting.google.com:
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method?
Looking back, I think the best way to understand the scientific
method is to have students apply it, which I didn't really do till
graduate school...and also do it in a way that might be interesting
personally to the student...my two cents.
--
If I have to die--{let it be as a blonde.}
--Track of the Moonbeast.
catshark
Thursday (though there are some Tuesday heretics):
<http://home.eznet.net/~heiny/theories/last_thursday.html>
Unfortunately, Michael Keane's site is apparently not up anymore, so you
can't see the picture of Her Exaltedness, Queen Maeve.
>Including our false memories of past events that never happened.
>
>Continuing a great navel tradition!
>(Google on Omphalos)
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
TheScientificTruth
States is worse than most people think. I am a freshman at a state
university, and I often get into arguments over science and religion.
The first thing I notice is that people have no idea how science is
supposed to work. To many people have the idea that science is
supposed to have all the answers, and since scientists constantly
disagree that must mean that science is wrong. Another disturbing
thing I notice is that some people believe that since some things
don't yet have an explanation, they must be supernatural. What they
don't realize is that science is constantly explaining more and more.
Consider the difference in our scientific understanding of the world
100 years ago and today. We may not scientifically understand such
things as consciousness, dark matter,or dark energy today, but if we
keep progressing as we have been, then I have no doubt that by 2104 we
will understand most of the stuff we don't understand now. The
difference in science and technology from 1904-2004 is unimaginable,
and I think that if children were tought this in school then most of
the problems of misunderstanding science wouldn't happen.
We need to teach children that all of the sciences are
interconnected. Chemistry doesn't violate physics, biology doesn't
violate chemistry, and phychology doesn't violate biology. But
apparently college level students in my college think it does. In a
recent argument I had, the people I was arguing with were arguing that
mutations violated the laws of physics. I was trying to explain how
mutations happen (from a physics perspective), but they kept saying
that since "mutations aren't supposed to happen, and they do, then
they must violate physics." One of the most important things we must
do is make it clear that all of natural science forms a coherent
framework that ultimately must be explained in terms of physics.
The root cause of all of this is fundamentalist religion. We must
not allow fundamentalists to continue to degrade the intelligence of
our children and teens. The fundamentalists really don't want a
scientific explanation for much. They want to believe that God is in
control and that he is punishing the wicked and blessing the
righteous. However, this is dangerous thought in the scientific world.
For example, diseases like cancer and natural disaters are all caused
by God in the fundamentalist view. With such a view, the best thing to
do is pray to God when things go bad, and live in fear that things
will go bad when things are going good. Ultimately, according to this
view, God has the final say as to what happens, and there is nothing
you can do to prevent it. The scientific view is much more optimistic.
In this view, you can find the cause of disease and formulate a cure
and/or vaccine. You can also use the laws of physics to predict the
weather, so that people will be able to prepare for natural disasters.
Which one has worked out better in history? Look at all of the
progress made in the 20th century and see how much was done by prayer
and how much was done by hardworking scientists. I don't have time to
explain much more.
My point is that the education system needs a serious overhaul so
that people don't get confused about science like they are. Not only
that, but the education system in general is bad, not just in science,
but in other areas as well. The science education system isn't just
bad, its worse than anyone has admitted.
Alan Jeffery
"R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fcb1069.04040...@posting.google.com...
> "Alan Jeffery" <observa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<AmLac.1303$d%6.3...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
> snip
> > From what I have been able to learn about the 'Merican education system,
you
> > folks don't teach science very well.
>
> We do not have a national science curriculum. Our Schools are
> entirely locally based. I think the highest form of mandatory
> oversight is from the State, and even that would vary from state to
> state. Hence, NY public schools are different from Alabama public
> schools.
Granted, a generalisation. But I have heard from a large number of
'Mericans (includings to regs) who seem to think there are a lot of probs
with the way science is taught in the US. I also know someone who teaches
science in an LA school. She has a hard time understanding the almost sole
emphasis on texts and rote learning (primary school).
>
> > Primary school science here is taught
> > by asking questions, and finding answers, in the field. If you like, a
> > gentle intro to the scientific method.
>
> Everywhere in your country kids upto ~12 years old allways learn
> science by being taken out of the schools and into the 'field'? Who
> asks the questions and who decides what is the answer? Are the
> students expected to re-create modern science on its own?
> >
Of course not. Facts are also presented. But science is taught with the
emphasis on discovery. That is, you can be asked, and ask, simple
questions, and by doing "research" you can find the answers. In other words
that science does not depend on authority. Do you have a problem with such
an approach?
Alan Jeffery
> > Secondary science tends to be more "factoid" based, but even then there
is
> > an emphasis on asking questions and understanding how the answers are
> > arrived at. The emphasis is, throughout, and when possible, learning by
> > doing, not just remembering facts.
>
> Hmmm, thats how most schools do it here too.
>
> snip
>
> > We have our fair share of post-modernists, woo woos, and
> > fundamentalists
>
> ahh, what would life be like without them....
>
> snip
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 1/03/2004
Robin Levett
<snippage>
>
> Like fake feathered dinosaur fossils in China, exposed as fake, then
> the same faker finds another feathered dinosaur fossil and science
> accepts it as real?
When did this happen? Although I don't claim to be an expert, I've never
heard of a fake feathered dinosaur fossil being produced by a Chinese
collector - at least, not a "fake" in the sense of not being genuine rock
containing genuine fossilised feathered dinosaur.
I am however aware of a purported single feathered dinosaur fossil offered
by a Chinese collector that turned out to be two genuine feathered dinosaur
fossils clumsily joined together; in which case why shouldn't he have found
a third genuine feathered dinosaur fossil?
<snippage>
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
"There is much consistency in what I say if you just don't look too
close :-)" (Charlie Wagner, talk.origins)
Jon Fleming
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> It is
>not necessary to make any assumptions about the amount of daughter product
>in the initial sample to get a date. Real scientists use a method called
>isochron dating which allows for different proportions of parent and
>daughter in the original sample at age = 0.
Actually, concordia-discordia methods are used a _little_ more than
isochron method, and they do require a sample with near-zero initial
daughter (in this case, lead).
The method is used on minerals (mostly zircon) that strongly reject
lead at solidification. It's not possible to solidify a zircon with a
significant amount of lead.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Mike Arov
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc).
To me that's a sign of success of science and failure of it at the
same time. The fact that people CAN question scientific findings means
they find substce of scepticism in it (as opposed to religion, public
opinion etc. :))
On the other hand it appears that modern science wnet so far in its
development that it became simply too difficult for a common man to
understnd, too remote from him .... In the end we, scientists are like
modern day magitians. And for every magitian there is a witch hunter.
It seems both effects are inevitable tndacies and little can we mere
mortals can do about them :)
> The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
um .... actually I disagree. In a (relatively) happy and prosperous
society we are blessed to live in people seem to have time AND
interest (read - motivation) in less practical matters such as world
origins :)
In fact every taxi driver or hair stylist i come by seem to have
his/her "theory of everything" and/or uncanny interest in
relativity/archeology/astronomy pick your favorite
Yet, as I wrote before they generally lack the knowladge and/or
abbility to understand these subjectson any serious level
>
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
Funny .... I never saw any. The only time i've seen a lab coat was on
a safety class. There seems to be universal disregard for them "on the
field"
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
Worse actually .... I found many who belive that they (scientist)
SHOULD make things up :)
>
> What are we missing?
We as a human race or we as Americans? One aspect is growing
complexity of scientific disciplines. As I've sailed - inevitable
Quite another is American school system crying for reform ...
>As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine.
Actually they do! Many go to all sorts of charlatans ...
> They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
I think it's pretty difficult to teach "what the scientific method
is" to 13-14 years olds ... even we scientists screw up (or blatantly
cheat) on methodology now and again. Besides the need of teaching kids
the trick of the tried most of them won't choose is questionable.
On the other hand you, as a teacher, can and I believe should help
them appreciate science. No need to go in abstract "big picture". I
think what kids (of all ages) need is an opportunity to make their own
little "discoveries". They may not believe me or you or Darwin or
Feynman. They will believe THEMSELVE.
For instance - nothing criminal in memorizing species of dinosaurs
(though I myself hate memorization). But why not ask them to explain
something ABOUT them?
How fast do you think they were running? What do you think they were
eating?
How many time (pardon) answered nature's call?
Of cause one can't reasonably expect children to provide CORRECT
answers (unless you happen to have a future Gauss in your classroom).
But they'd be motivated to LOOK for answers, to ask parents, check the
libraries, imagine, guess after all! You'll be surprise just HOW close
these little geniuses can come to the correct answers.
Another aspect is popular image of scientists as social nerds. Hence
the natural distrusts (as opposed to skepticism) of their findings.
Easy to disillusion kids here. In USA we have the world largest
scientific infrastructure in the world. No matter where your school is
actually located you are almost guaranteed to have a world-class
research facility of one sort or another within 200 miles. Arrange a
tour (out rich programs in such centers/labs are HAPPY to assist
teachers .... and they even educate HS teachers free of charge
sometimes). Show youngsters what science and scientists are really.
Seeing scientists playing and discussing say baseball can go a long
way
One of my friends is a science teacher. He told me that he has to
take his physics class to Great America to show some Roller coasters
300 miles away.
A thought of taking them to a major accelerator facility 30 miles
away never occurred to him ...
:)
Hope it helps. Don't give up hope
Mike
>
> -LisaKay
> aa #2054
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Jon Fleming wrote:
Similarly, K-Ar dating uses crystals, which won't form with any
significant portion of daughter element.
And I have yet to hear our fundie friend explain (1) why all the
different dating methods keep giving the same dates, including those
like dendrochronology and ice core dating and paleomagnetism which use
entirely different processes than radiodating, and (2) why old-earth
anti-evolution creationists think every one of the young-earth
'scientific arguments" is a load of crap.
Sadly, though, I epxect my questions will NEVER be answered. Fundies
seem to have a deadly allergic reaction to answering direct questions.
<sigh>
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Eros
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
> > One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
> >
> > > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
> > > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
> > > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
> > > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
> > > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
> > > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
> > > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
> > > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
> >
> > Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
> > already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
> > fantasyland there, Randy.
>
>
>
> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
And he created the fossils of dead animals that never lived right in
the rocks too, I suppose.
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of
history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is
that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or
imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements
and necessary inferences of Scripture." [Henry Morris, Biblical
Cosmology and Modern Science, 1970, p.32-33]
celizwh
[snip]
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
>
> -LisaKay
> aa #2054
LisaKay wrote:
>
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
In my district we are fortunate to have a curriculum that places a strong
emphasis on inquiry process skills. Unfortunately, it is not followed
most of the time. There is no monetary support for science or any real
commitment on the part of most administrators (to whom science is also a
mystery). Class sizes are too large. Discipline is a problem. Both of
these are factors which contibute to teachers "going through the book". I
get far too many students who have never done anything but fill out
worksheets for ten years. I get a few every year who have come up through
the handful of feeder schools that have strong science teachers. They
still shock me sometimes. I have had two such students ask me how
astronauts get "out of" the earth. (Not out of earth's gravity. I
checked that out.) I can't personally visualize the schema that would
lead to such a question, let alone pinpoint where the error in their
understanding occurred or know how best to correct it. Something went
terribly wrong somewhere.
I don't know that we should cut out insect collection or naming dinosaurs,
though, at least not in the early grades. Don't both of these structure
content and process skills needed to understand classification and
speciation in the high school level?
--
"At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they ridicule you,
then they fight you, then you win."--Gandhi
Von Smith
> > Have any of you had similar experiences?
> >
> > Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> > mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> > is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> > voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> > of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> > motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> > theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> > story.)
> >
> > method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> > accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> > educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> > up.
>
>
>
> earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure half lifes with
> something we know to be many billions of years old. If the original creative
> or natural act of the universe coming to be already contained elements that
> were not pure in nature but compounds then half lifes are meaningless.
> Uranium lead isotopes or potassium argon isotopes may have been that way
> from the very moment of creation, if so then trtying to date with these
> methods are bogus.
>
Other posters have already pointed out that there are ways to check
"zero age" assumptions (isochrons, lead-lead and argon-argon dating,
etc.). But even without these methods there is one very important
fact anyone challenging radiometrically-derived ages must address:
internal and external consistency of the bulk of those ages. Whenever
possible, K-Ar dates are cross-checked with other isotope methods,
such as rubidium-strontium. In some cases, we have the same rocks
dateed by several different methods, including U-Pb, K-Ar, and Rb-Sr,
and the overwhelming majority of the resulting dates agree with one
another. Do you *really* wish to argue that a given sample just
happened to be contaminated by just the right amounts of lead, argon,
*and* strontium? And not only that, but do you propose that they were
selectively contaminated by the specific isotopes of those elements
that also happen to be decay products of the putative parent isotope,
such as Ar40 as opposed to Ar39? That would require quite a
remarkable conspiracy of independent events even for one sample, and
you would have to propose that it happens regularly all over the world
to account for all the samples that produce concordant ages.
Not only that, but you would have to explain the strong correlation
between radiometrically-derived ages and relative dating from other
methods, such as index fossils and stratigraphic location. There are
rocks from all over the world, from Canada to Greenland to Australia
to Namibia to China, that contain Cambrian and/or Vendian fauna. For
some strange reason, the rocks associated with these fossils
consistently date somewhere between 500 and 600 million years old.
Why, if contamination is the reason for these ages, would these
various rocks in different parts of the world all just happen to be
contaminated by roughly the same amounts of strontium, argon, etc. so
as not only to yield a wrong age, but to consistently yield the *same*
wrong age?
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Thomas P.
(Eros) wrote:
>"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<106ni3i...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
>> > One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
>> >
>> > > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
>> > > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
>> > > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
>> > > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
>> > > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
>> > > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
>> > > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
>> > > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
>> >
>> > Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
>> > already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
>> > fantasyland there, Randy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
>> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
>
>And he created the fossils of dead animals that never lived right in
>the rocks too, I suppose.
>
That God! What a card!
Ian Braidwood
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
>
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
>
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
>
> -LisaKay
> aa #2054
Hello Lisa,
I wish you had been one of my science teachers. I had one or two good
ones, but asking questions this searching mark you as something
special. :-)
I think perhaps, people need to be made aware that scepticism is more
than just doubt, it is _reasoned_ doubt.
Disbelieving something because you don't like it, the person who told
you or its implications, isn't rational grounds for scepticism. Yet,
these are at the root of two Christian attacks on evolution: Ad
hominem attacks and indignation at ancestry. However, provenence can
be a valid reason for disbelief where a source has proved unreliable
in the past.
Rational reasons for scepticism usually involve a conflict of ideas.
This is how I became an atheist; I had detected a faint air of
disapproval of evolution from my family to the point that I was
worried about going to science classes. When I found out what
evolution really was, I found it eminently reasonable and since it and
Christianity were not compatible, became an atheist. This shows that
forcing people to make a choice is a dangerous tactic.
The recent rise of Christian fundamentalism has even given
non-Christian commentators courage to make anti-evolutionary
statments. Recently, I heard a woman on BBC Radio 4 claim that there
were serious problems with evolution, though she was not honest enough
to spell them out. This type of statement helps to make anti-Darwinism
respectable, but is also a denial of people's intellectual autonomy.
Here I think, is a way to sell reasoned scepticism to young minds,
especially to teenagers eager for independence. Emphasise how
reasoning has to be transparent in order to maintain intellectual
autonomy.
When other people's revelation or doctrine are put forward as reason
to believe, a person can only accept or reject it, but with scientific
evidence you can check things out to your own satisfaction. This is
where scepticism scores over reflex doubt.
If you portray scepticism as an active process, in which the agent
takes control of what happens in their mind, rather than just expect
other people to do all the work, then you will make it appeal to the
young.
I hope this is useful.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
TimR
Science is one method that has a high degree of reliability but low
perceived certainty. Actually science never proves anything, and is
always prepared to be revised. It is factually reliable but has low
perceived certainty.
Almost all other methods have higher perceived levels of certainty.
Divine revelation, for example, has an extremely high level of
perceived certainty. Judging by the number of times the world has not
ended, it has a fairly low degree of reliability. People don't just
think it is likely that astrology works, they KNOW it. They are
certain. This is very comfortable.
It is my theory that methods of knowing lie on an continuum from
divine revelation on one end to science on the other, and that there
is an inverse correlation between perceived certainty and reliability
the whole way. I suspect there may once have been a survival
advantage to being certain and taking confident action, when the facts
are not reliable or even wrong.
If you do not recognize the impact of the certainty factor, you are
doomed to failure in these types of arguments. A scientist confronted
with contrary facts will have to admit it and change his opinion,
albeit sometimes grudgingly and with poor grace. A believer in magic
is NEVER convinced by contrary facts or logic, because they KNOW.
stew dean
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
> > One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
> >
> > > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
> > > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
> > > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
> > > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
> > > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
> > > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
> > > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
> > > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
> >
> > Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
> > already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
> > fantasyland there, Randy.
>
>
>
> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
And I am in fact a computer program.
As someone pointed out that if what you are saying is true then we
could have all been created last Tuesday (lasttuesdayism as it is
called).
If you accept that god creates things fully formed regardless of if
they can be formed by other means (and have been observed to have been
done like that) then there is nothing that can refute you and nothing
that exists that support your view.
It is like me saying I have an invisible friend that no one else can
see. You can't disprove that as you can't see him, not then I can't
prove it either.
As it turns out that claim can never be said to be true as it would be
100% subjective. The same is true for lasttuesdayism and god creating
adam and eve or even things such as a global flood (actualy the last
one has much evidence that shows it's not true or at least the work of
major exageration).
Give it some thought and at least you can see how a skeptic works and
why religion requires faith and not objectivity.
Stew Dean
LisaKay
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:33:39 -0500, Randy Story wrote
> > (in article <106n0fb...@corp.supernews.com>):
<snip for space>
> Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I do
> understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light bulbs. Th
> problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok at the uranium
> lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years and therefore
> when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
> the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
> the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we calculate
> the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
> similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
> The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
> meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
> cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
> decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
> The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
> apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to be
> over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this sample
> and of course it was bogus.
A good source for information about radiometric dating (and written by
Christians) is this:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019
You make an interesting point about when radiometric dating doesn't
work. Considering my degree is in biology and I haven't really
studied geology that much, I am probably not the best person to be
answering your questions. Anyway, I will do my best.
As for Surtsey, I would say they were using the wrong tool for the
job. You wouldn't use a five-gallon bucket to measure a teaspoon of
water. By the same token, you wouldn't use something with a half-life
of 1.26 b.y. (K-Ar) to measure something 40 years old.
In researching this Surtsey mistake, I noticed two things. First, it
was only mentioned on creationist websites. Second, they never said
the name of the scientist who took this measurement or referenced
where this was published. Perhaps I just missed it, but without an
actual reference, I question this. I can only imagine a researcher
trying to use K-Ar on something of known age just out of curiosity to
see what would happen. I don't know that much about dating rocks, but
I know that if the age of the rock is not within several half-lives of
the isotope you are using, you'll get a bad reading. No scientist
would use K-Ar to test the age of a 40 year old rock and actually
expect accurate results.
Your question about the original composition of a rock is one I cannot
answer, but I can tell you that carbon dating can be used for things
that were once living (not the age of earth, obviously) and the ratio
of C-14 to C-12 can be estimated as well as how much carbon was in the
original sample. I'm sure someone out there will give you a better
answer for this question.
Lastly, two things about the nature of science. First you seem to
think that if radiometric dating shows one wrong answer that it should
be thrown out altogether. That's silly. If there was enough evidence
that it didn't work at all, and we did throw it out, what would you
recommend we use to date the earth, the bible? Even if we're wrong,
that doesn't necessarily make you right. Also, notice that I
mentioned a couple of times that there are things I don't know. Ask
yourself why scientists say "we don't know" and "this is an estimate".
Is that not more honest than making the data fit into your
preconceived ideas or throwing it out? That's what creationists do.
That's what you're trying to do when you say that because radiometric
dating had one bad result, you can throw out all the other data.
-LisaKay
aa #2054
LisaKay
> by asking questions, and finding answers, in the field. If you like, a
> gentle intro to the scientific method.
>
> an emphasis on asking questions and understanding how the answers are
> arrived at. The emphasis is, throughout, and when possible, learning by
> info. http://www.tki.org.nz/e/community/ncea/resources.php click on
> whichever subject takes your fancy. I'm not saying everything is rosy by
> the way. We have our fair share of post-modernists, woo woos, and
> fundamentalists
Thanks! It looks promising!
>
> Mind you, something like 30% of NZers are either atheists or agnostics.
>
Mmmmm... Must be nice!
> Alan Jeffery
>
> >
> > -LisaKay
> > aa #2054
LisaKay
> In article <1dbe2aec.04033...@posting.google.com>,
> these days. The kids hear this, or hear their parents discussing it, or
> if religious, from their clergymen.their minds are made up before they
> even take a serious science class.
>
> If you teach science you have probably seen the site put up by The UCMP
> at Berkeley:
>
> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
>
I've had my students look at the site quite a bit. It's excellent!
There is a misconceptions section in the student's part that really is
good for them to read.
> Perhaps you should have the kids take a look at it too. It explains many
> of the terms such as theory, hypothesis, evidence, proof, etc. It also
> describes how the scientific method works. Although the site is designed
> primarily for teachers, HS students should have no trouble comprehending
> it.
>
> As far as their attitudes towards science, perhaps you could arrange to
> have them talk to a scientist. I'm sure that it might be possible to get
> someone from a local university, industry, or a government lab, to give
> a short presentation on how scientists work and cover some topics as
> designing experiments, reviewing data, publishing, the peer review
> process, etc. They could also talk about what it means to work in
> science, the joys, the frustrations, the effort, The thrill of seeing an
> experiment work out the way that you predicted, etc. I'm a chemist who
> has been in the field for over 35 years now, mostly in industrial
> biotech labs. I would love to talk to the kids if the opportunity were
> to present it self, and I'm sure that others would too.
>
I'll look into that!
Thanks!
> I'm rambling, but these are just some ideas.
>
>
>
> > -LisaKay
> > aa #2054
> >
LisaKay
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:17:22 +0000 (UTC), LisaK...@hotmail.com
> (LisaKay) wrote:
>
> >Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> >Have any of you had similar experiences?
> >
> >Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> >mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> >is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> >voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> >of science.
>
> would urge you not to discourage it. The important thing is to teach
> your students how to be logical and critical with their skepticism.
>
> >More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> >opinion, etc).
>
> What matters is that the skepticism of the source be proportional to
> the importance placed on the information. If I ask co-worker Bob what
> he did on Sunday, and he says he had an enjoyable round of golf, I can
> accept that at face value without any further investigation. If I ask
> murder suspect Bob what he was doing at the time of the murder, and he
> says he was playing a round of golf, I would be negligent if I did not
> check it out and make sure there was totally independent and reliable
> verification of that claim. In teaching the importance of skepticism,
> you also have to teach the value of proportionality.
Good point!
> >Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> >method?
>
> No.
>
> >I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> >accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> >in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> >educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> >up.
> >
> >What are we missing?
>
> If you have access to a decent library, I'm going to suggest a couple
> of books.
>
> First, for a critical look at the issues involved with teaching about
> science and how science actually works, I highly recommend H. Bauer's
> "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method". And
> second, for an examination of the problem of distinguishing good
> science from junk science, Bob Park's "Voodoo Science" is insightful
> and rather entertaining. I think you'll find both books have much
> material relevant to your questions here.
>
> (And if your favorite library also has Bronowski's "Science and Human
> Values" that's a good one if you ever need to be reminded why the
> subject you teach is an important one.)
I will be visiting the library today! Thanks!
>
> >As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> >youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> >a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> >don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> >medicine ASAP,
>
> Yes, but without the critical tools to determine which is best, many
> people wind up going to Chiropractors, Homeopathists, Accupuncturists,
> and a multitude of other quacks. Your students have every right to
> want the best, but they are going to need powers of critical thinking
> if they are ever going to find it.
One of my bio kids has a father who is a chiropractor. I accidentally
insulted him in class the other day. Oops! I don't think the kid
quite understood what I meant.
>
> >but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>
> For that one, they are just repeating what they've been taught.
> Remember that you aren't their only teacher.
>
> >Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> >the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> >problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> >evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> >that during the 12 years we educate our kids?
>
> You can't. Hit the juicy and fun topics and make them want to learn
> more, and teach them the difference between robust evidence and flimsy
> evidence, and you'll have done plenty. They can take it from there.
>
Good point, again. It's amazing the amount of apathy in kids from
affluent families. If I'm not talking about drugs, the discussion is
boring in their eyes. I have found a few topics they are interested
in, though. We're going to talk about primate evolution soon and that
should be interesting.
> >We would have to stop
> >teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> >species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> >causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
>
> For your situation, I think teaching science that your kids will love
> *is* the big picture.
>
But it's just memorizing facts and not thinking about anything. In
elementary school the kids are just memorizing dino names or rock
names. I don't see much value in that. It may teach about the
diversity of life, but says nothing about how living things are
interrelated.
> Kronk
LisaKay
> LisaKay wrote:
> > Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> > Have any of you had similar experiences?
> >
> > Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> > mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> > is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> > voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> > opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> > motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> > theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> > story.)
> >
> > accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> > in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> > educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> > up.
> >
> > youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> > a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> > don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> >
> > Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> > the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> > problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> > evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> > teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> > species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> > causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
> >
> > aa #2054
>
> I think you have hit on some of the major problems, expecially the fact that
> we are not teaching what science actually is and how it works. But, in my
> opinion as a layperson, I see a major factor for skepticism and mis-trust of
> science in the popular press. When reporting on science news they almost
> always get it wrong, miss the point or misrepresent the significance of the
> findings. An example would be the headline (I'm makeing these up for
> purposes of illustation) "Eggs Will Kill You", where the finding tend to
> show a small percentage of earlier mortality from heart disease for white
> males who eat 12 eggs or more per day. The following week a new headline
> reads "Eat Eggs to Stay Healthy", in which a study finds that women aged 45
> and older who eat three eggs a week have small percentage advantage in
> neural responce over those who abstain completely.
>
> This kind of reporting and the tendancy of most people to skim articles or
> read headlines only leads to the typical question, "Why can't scientist make
> up there minds if I should eat eggs or not?" Apply this situation to the
> entire realm of science reporting and you get a situatution where people
> either just don't pay attention any more or are very distrusting of any
> scientifc matters they are exposed to.
Good point. I think I could make an interesting critical thinking
activity out of this. Hmmm... I'll have to work on that one!
>
> However, getting back to your first suggestion - Are we not teaching what
> "science" means? - I believe the answer is no. I think this is evidenced by
> the recent insurgence of ID proposals being considered by school boards.
> People who have a fundemental knowledge of what science is, what the methods
> are, what it can and can't do, are less likely to be confused by popular
> reporting and the pseudo-science tactics used by unscrupulous people for
> political or commercial gain.
SneakyPete
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
> > One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
> >
> > > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
> > > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
> > > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
> > > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
> > > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
> > > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
> > > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
> > > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
> >
> > Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
> > already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
> > fantasyland there, Randy.
>
>
>
> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
And he did it just last Thursday, right.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism;
>Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
>Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
>Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
>mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
>is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
>voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
>of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
>opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
>motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
>theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
>story.)
Generally, I think the main problem is the theism virus infects children
since before the time they walk. Such is contained in a 'box' which is
marked 'exempt from examination.'
The word theory, isn't a problem. The problem is, it seems so many
teachers have no idea it doesn't mean 'guess.'
>Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
>method?
Partly.
> I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
>accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
>in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
>educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
>up.
Why not? Their preachers do.
>What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
>youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
>a subject science is.
They take it for granted. The wonders the fruits of science produces
are now mind-numbingly common place. It's also 'hard' and takes 'work.'
They see all these actors, actresses, and musicians who are making all
sorts of 'big bucks,' many of whom come across as total lack brains.
They may consider such to be 'easy,' and have so much of a return. Why
spend years busting your arse 'swimming upstream' when you can drift
along and rake in the $$$$?
> The other thing that gets me is that people
>don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
>medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
Yep. And they call a malevolent fantasy figure 'good' and grovel before
the empty icons of it.
>Are we not teaching what "science" means?
Doesn't look like it. If the teachers (some/many) are not themselves
educated they certainly can't teach the subject.
> Are we not teaching what the scientific method is?
Appears not with so much illiteracy. How many children are encouraged
to sit down and read a good book?
> Are we not showing kids the evidence?
Maybe. My questions/comments/musings are-in no particular order:
If it is presented in the usual 'memorize and regurgitate' method as
most other things..... (of course, I'm speaking generally as there are
exceptions to darn near every 'rule.')
The student merely parrots the answers rather than integrating the
information.
Is the information presented in a way in which the data captures the
student's attention/imagination and encourages a cascading train of
thought realizations?
Is the information presented in a way which is *relevent* to the
student?
I do recall thinking, while in the public school system;
'what relevance does this have to me?
Why bother? I'm never going to use this stuff.
I suspect the 'why' is the most critical item missed. IMO, if a couple
of examples of the 'why' is demonstrated such would increase the
integration of the 'how.'
Other factors....
IMO, often by the time the student hits high school they were never
encouraged to, or were praised for, thinking.
If the student is lucky enough to get a high school class which really
required, praised, and encouraged critical thinking, often it is much
too late.
I was lucky enough to get such a class as a sophmore. I don't remember
the name of the class. I do know, that not only did I have a hard time
with it-as you had to determine the factors and priorities yourself, but
my mother was furious. I still remember her snapping; "They're (the one
instructor) is making you *think.*
IMO, critical thinking skills need to be started on in first grade and
continued to be expanded on through out the system.
Encourage the students to challenge the instructor. "Show us" how 'x'
was determined, what (short list) mistakes were made and how were they
corrected? How is this relevent to us? Is this a singular use
item/method or multi? Demonstrated examples are?
I suspect changes in teaching methods used would, in many cases, help
show education is of worth. Consider that going through the public
education system has the perceived common worth of that of a dropped
penny in a parking lot.
Consider in many countries education is fairly uncommon. Consider their
the chance to get an education is like being offered a 'ming vase.'
Flip side again.....
Consider college. Think back to the students for whom were 'busting
their ass' to pay for their schooling and their attitude toward it.
Contrast that attitude to the (general alert again) students who had a
'free ride.' Which group valued the opportunity more? (in general)
Another factor is, generally, the selected field of learning is of
interest to the student. Right there is another motivation factor.
I can give what I can see as one heck of a motivation factor, but only
if requested.
Anyway, the above is what I've come to the conclusion about based on
myraid of factors. Whether I'm on the 'right track' or out in 'la la
land' is for you to determine.
> The
>problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
>evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
>that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
>teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
>species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
>causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
That is a problem. On myraid topics there's an 'ocean' of data. The
more there is, generally, the lighter you have to touch on it to get it
all in. Generally, the lighter a subject is touched on the less
relevant it is for the student.
Now, if the teachers and the administrators are (analogy alert) 'dumb
and dumber' and don't have critical thinking skills themselves, how in
the heck are they going to be able to teach/encourage skills they
themselves don't have?
If the child's parents and society in general keep demonstrating an
education isn't important the tendency is for the child to emulate what
is demonstrated.
I think I'll stop here as I'm not writing a book. Besides, I'd like to
find out if my reply considers item(s) you consider of substance. :)
>-LisaKay
>aa #2054
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
<patj...@newsguy.com>, Message ID:
<0001HW.BC910BD7...@enews.newsguy.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:33:39 -0500, Randy Story wrote
>(in article <106n0fb...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
>> Then enlighten me please.
>
>Certainly. For one thing, one of several methods of determining the age of
>the earth depends on the way that radioactive substances behave. The _same_
>theories behind that method are _also_ behind the _observed_ fact that the
>sun is a thermonuclear reactor and that nuclear power plants and nuclear
>bombs work. In other words, one of three things is true:
I'm sorry, Patrick, but you just wasted your time. "Randy's" screaming
"I can't hear you....lalalalalalalalalalalaala"
(snip)
stoney
<lflank...@ij.net>, Message ID: <406b9...@corp.newsgroups.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>
>Randy Story wrote:
>
>
>> Then enlighten me please. I may no know all the jargon but I believe the
>> assumptions that dating methods are based on are quite bogus.
>
>
>
>Uh, why don't old-earth anti-evolution creationists, or intelligent
>deisgn theorists, think so . . . . . .
>
>And why on earth should anyone care about your uninformed opinion on the
>matter anyway? Are you speaking on behalf of God or something?
"Randy" thinks he is not only "God," but his sheer depths of dishonesty
and invincible ignorance are the wisdom of the ages.
stoney
(LisaKay), Message ID: <1dbe2aec.04040...@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
/me chucks all the variants of the Bibles he can find into the trash.
These are totally worthless as people don't turn into pillars of salt,
man can't live in the belly of a whale-much less than 3 days.
What a lying sack of christian dogshit you are Randy, and a heaping
hypocrite.
stoney
<nos...@newsranger.com>, Message ID:
<kpVac.341$H4...@www.newsranger.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>In article <406C1B56...@rica.net>, John Popelish says...
>>
>>Robibnikoff wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <106ni3i...@corp.supernews.com>, Randy Story says...
>>
>>> >Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
>>> >grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
>>>
>>> You don't actually believe this hooey, do you?
>>>
>>> How old are you? Five?
>>
>>There is no other believable explanation.
>
>Of course, my five-year-old would never buy this malarkey.
Yes, your daughter has much more balls than Randy could ever dream of in
his wildest fantasies. Your daughter is also encouraged to *think.*
That causes "Randy" to foul his nappies.
stoney
<nos...@newsranger.com>, Message ID:
<47Uac.334$H4....@www.newsranger.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>In article <106ni3i...@corp.supernews.com>, Randy Story says...
>>
>>
>>"Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
>>> One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
>>>
>>> > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
>>> > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
>>> > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
>>> > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
>>> > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
>>> > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
>>> > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
>>> > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
>>>
>>> Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
>>> already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
>>> fantasyland there, Randy.
>>
>>
>>
>>Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
>>grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
>
>You don't actually believe this hooey, do you?
>
>How old are you? Five?
Randy would be around that mental age based on the verse to view "God"
as through the mind of a child (paraphrase).
stoney
(LisaKay), Message ID: <1dbe2aec.0404...@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
>"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<N22dnZc6woD...@speakeasy.net>...
>> "LisaKay" <LisaK...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1dbe2aec.04033...@posting.google.com...
>> > Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
>> > Have any of you had similar experiences?
>> >
>> > Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
>> > mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
>> > is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
>> > voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
>> > of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
>> > opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
>> > motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
>> > theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
>> > story.)
>> >
>> > Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
>> > method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
>> > accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
>> > in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
>> > educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
>> > up.
>> >
>> > What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
>> > youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
>> > a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
>> > don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
>> > medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>> >
>> > Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
>> > the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence?
>>
>> I'm a little puzzled Lisa. Aren't you in a better position to know the
>> answers to these questions than just about anyone? Do you teach what science
>> means? Do you teach what the scientific method is? Are you showing the kids
>> the evidence?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>
>Of course I do, but it seems to be something new to these kids. Like
>they've never heard of radioactive decay, or evolution except from
>their church (which condemns it, of course). I was hoping that there
>would be some teachers or university profs around here. I'm
>relatively new to the profession and very new to teaching evolution.
>I'm just stunned at the lack of knowledge these kids have and the
>amount of skepticism they have. Some of them really doubt we've been
>to the moon!
Why don't they apply that hefty amount of skepticism to the drivel the
clergy drools?
/me loans Lisa a stout shoulder to lean on and a lorry full of asprin.
stoney
(R.Schenck), Message ID:
<8fcb1069.04040...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>"Alan Jeffery" <observa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<AmLac.1303$d%6.3...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
>snip
>> From what I have been able to learn about the 'Merican education system, you
>> folks don't teach science very well.
>
>We do not have a national science curriculum. Our Schools are
>entirely locally based. I think the highest form of mandatory
>oversight is from the State, and even that would vary from state to
>state. Hence, NY public schools are different from Alabama public
>schools.
>
>> Primary school science here is taught
>> by asking questions, and finding answers, in the field. If you like, a
>> gentle intro to the scientific method.
>
>Everywhere in your country kids upto ~12 years old allways learn
>science by being taken out of the schools and into the 'field'? Who
>asks the questions and who decides what is the answer? Are the
>students expected to re-create modern science on its own?
>>
>> Secondary science tends to be more "factoid" based, but even then there is
>> an emphasis on asking questions and understanding how the answers are
>> arrived at. The emphasis is, throughout, and when possible, learning by
>> doing, not just remembering facts.
>
>Hmmm, thats how most schools do it here too.
>
>snip
>
>> We have our fair share of post-modernists, woo woos, and
>> fundamentalists
>
>ahh, what would life be like without them....
'Heaven.'
John Stockwell
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
>
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
The problem is that you are not really seeing skepticism, but rather
a mistrust of authority, which are really two very different things.
There are several sources of this attitude. Part of it was the post
WWII backlash (Vietnam War, Watergate, and the like) wherein any
big structure is mistrusted. Combine this with the upswing in
Protestant
fundamentalism, with its strong tradition of personal God, private
revelation,
and Biblical literalism, as well as a general societal notion that
people are
not supposed to judge the belief systems of others, a general
litigiousness
on the part of people who believe that they have been discriminated
against, and you have a formula for distrust without adequate
verification.
>
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
To a large degree, such ideas in the past were accepted on the
authority
of science. Now, it is a tougher sell because you have people in the
creationist camp who are cranking out tons of scientific-appearing
material
that appear also to be ``authority'' material to the layman.
You can find any number of
"alternate" views (the kind of stuff that is on Art Bell.) There is
nothing
really wrong with young people being interested in the fabulous tales
of UFO's and the paranormal. That is part of youth. The problem comes
in if people view this stuff as being as real as stuff that they would
read in the science
text book.
Indeed, simply attempting to argue from the authority of science
doesn't
work as well as it did a couple of generations ago. It may be even
negative
to try to present science as an "authority".
>
> What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution is "just a theory".
You have to ask why this is so. The answer is familiarity and trust.
Medicine is something that everybody sees. There are tv dramas about
medical doctors. This is not the case with other areas of science.
There is also a notion that there is safety in medical practice.
Indeed,
there is not only the perception of safety in medicine, but the
expectation
of it.
The public is not aware of the lengths that other areas of the
scientific
community go to promote accurate and honest work in their fields.
Indeed,
this is why scientists tend to trust the work of scientists in other
fields. That trust has been earned, again, by familiarity and by an
awareness that researchers across the fields of science practice
peer review and have high standards of ethical behavior.
So, while we may not be able to argue on the grounds of the authority
of
science, we may be able to argue on the *expertise* of the scientific
community.
>
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
We in the scientific community are not doing a good enough job
promoting
our case in letting people know that we are committed to honesty,
accuracy,
and ethical behavior, and have structures in place in our scientific
culture to guarantee accuracy, prevent fraud, and correct mistakes.
Also, I would also say that there seems to be a real gulf in
communication between university level and lower level
education. There should be more interaction between the university
level scientists and the elementary/high school community, but there
is not. Such interaction would give students and teachers the ability
to get an idea of how scientists think as well an idea of what they
think about specific issues.
>
> -LisaKay
> aa #2054
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and
inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New
York.
David Wise
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:57:16 +0000 (UTC), dwi...@aol.com (David Wise) wrote:
>
> >"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<106ni3i...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns94BDC65A...@204.127.199.17...
> >> > One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
> >> >
> >> > > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the age
> >> > > of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to measure
> >> > > half lifes with something we know to be many billions of years old. If
> >> > > the original creative or natural act of the universe coming to be
> >> > > already contained elements that were not pure in nature but compounds
> >> > > then half lifes are meaningless. Uranium lead isotopes or potassium
> >> > > argon isotopes may have been that way from the very moment of
> >> > > creation, if so then trtying to date with these methods are bogus.
> >> >
> >> > Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant stars
> >> > already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got quite a
> >> > fantasyland there, Randy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind full
> >> grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of age, right.
> >
> >false appearance of great age, LAST WEDNESDAY! (or was it Thursday?)
>
> Thursday (though there are some Tuesday heretics):
Damn their heretical hides! Fire up the Inquisition!
Nobody EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition!
>
> <http://home.eznet.net/~heiny/theories/last_thursday.html>
>
> Unfortunately, Michael Keane's site is apparently not up anymore, so you
> can't see the picture of Her Exaltedness, Queen Maeve.
>
> >Including our false memories of past events that never happened.
> >
> >Continuing a great navel tradition!
> >(Google on Omphalos)
>
> ---------------
> J. Pieret
> ---------------
>
> In the name of the bee
> And of the butterfly
> And of the breeze, amen
>
> - Emily Dickinson -
John Wilkins
> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:57:16 +0000 (UTC), dwi...@aol.com (David Wise) wrote:
> >
> > >"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote
> > >> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote
> > >> > One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Randy Story:
> > >> >
> > >> > > It is a guess!! And a poor one at that. The only way to know the
> > >> > > age of the earth is to be able to calibrate the instruments to
> > >> > > measure half lifes with something we know to be many billions of
> > >> > > years old. If the original creative or natural act of the
> > >> > > universe coming to be already contained elements that were not
> > >> > > pure in nature but compounds then half lifes are meaningless.
> > >> > > Uranium lead isotopes or potassium argon isotopes may have been
> > >> > > that way from the very moment of creation, if so then trtying to
> > >> > > date with these methods are bogus.
> > >> >
> > >> > Couple that with the notion that God created light from distant
> > >> > stars already in motion and most of the way here, and you've got
> > >> > quite a fantasyland there, Randy.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Isnt that the way you would have created it. He created humankind
> > >> full grown, trees full grown. That means they had the appearance of
> > >> age, right.
> > >
> > >Which is proof positive that God created the universe, all with the
> > >false appearance of great age, LAST WEDNESDAY! (or was it Thursday?)
> >
> > Thursday (though there are some Tuesday heretics):
>
> Damn their heretical hides! Fire up the Inquisition!
>
> Nobody EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Well, not on a Friday, at any rate...
>
> >
> > <http://home.eznet.net/~heiny/theories/last_thursday.html>
> >
> > Unfortunately, Michael Keane's site is apparently not up anymore, so you
> > can't see the picture of Her Exaltedness, Queen Maeve.
> >
> > >Including our false memories of past events that never happened.
> > >
> > >Continuing a great navel tradition!
> > >(Google on Omphalos)
> >
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
TheScientificTruth
> Perhaps I've been missing something, but I noticed something today.
> Have any of you had similar experiences?
> Many people I talk about science with (my HS students and my husband,
> mostly) have a healthy sense of skepticism. I think that skepticism
> is a great quality to have and something we should encourage in the
> voting population. The problem I see is that they are most skeptical
> of science. More so than of other ways of knowing (religion, popular
> opinion, etc). The big problem with this is that they lack the
> motivation to research the evidence on which scientists base their
> theories. (Also the word theory is a problem, but that is another
> story.)
>
I know exactly what you mean.
> Is this due to a lack of fundamental knowledge of the scientific
> method? I really feel sometimes that things (like the scientifically
> accepted age of the earth) are just some geek in a lab coat's guess,
> in the eyes of the average person. I feel like people who are not
> educated in science really believe that scientists just make this shit
> up.
One of the problems is lack of knowledge. When I was a kid, I read
MANY science books. I grew up in a fundamentalist house and believed
all the lies about the age of the earth and the flood, but read lots
of science anyway. At first I ignored all the science that went
against my religion (almost everything in astronomy, biology, and
geology),but as I began to understand science and how it was done I
realized that all of science formed a coherent, integrated whole that
won't work in a creationist framework. My parents say that science was
made up by wicked people who want to have an explanation other than
God so they don't have to be responsible to him for their actions. My
favorite example is how they say that someone looked in a telescope
and made the big bang up. When I try to explain the fascinating story
of how the big bang theory came about, telling them about microwave
background radiation, redshift, hydrogen-helium ratios, general
relativity, etc., they simply say God made it that way. If they
understood science then they would quickly realize problems with that
view. For example, to explain away the fact that we can see light from
stars more than 6,000 light years away, they of course say that god
created the light in transit. One of the problems with this is cosmic
radiation. Not only is God creating radio, IR, optical, UV, x-ray, and
Gamma radiation in transit, but he is also producing material
particles in transit too. Nuclei coming from supernova and other
violent phenomenon (most further than 6,000 light years)reach the
earth constantly. The biggest problem comes from the fact that these
particles slam into the earth's athmosphere, collide with the atoms
and generate other particles. Some of these make it to the surface and
cause mutations, which can lead to cancer, birth defects, etc. This
God was so obsessed with tricking us into thinking that the universe
is billions of years old that he created nuclei in transit that
ultimately cause harm. Or so the fundamentalists say. My point though,
is that if people were tought how science works, how we know what we
know, and of course teach them what we know, then we wouldn't have as
big of a problem as we do. I was fortunate to like science and educate
myself in it. I know that science isn't made up by demon worshippers
or whatever. But until kids are taught the truth about science, many
will think that scientists just make up stuff for whatever reason. It
will, however, take alot of time to teach kids that much, so a total
restructuring of the education system is needed.
> What are we missing? As a science teacher, I am concerned that our
> youth are missing out on how important and how serious and how useful
> a subject science is. The other thing that gets me is that people
> don't question science when it comes to medicine. They want the best
> medicine ASAP, but they call evolution "just a theory"!
>
This is the great hypocrisy of the layman. The layman recieves the
many benefits of science throuoght the day, but often they laugh at
the "nerds" who are doing all the work. If they knew how much of thier
day to day life was dependent on science (thier video games, personal
computers, remote controls, the internet, microwave, modern cars,
modern planes, modern telephones (esp. cell phones), weather forecasts
that actually save lives(according to some estimates, the warning for
hurricane Camille saved 55,000 lives), all of their cold medicine,
heart medicine, pain medicine, vaccines (which wiped out small
pox),medical procedures (surgery, dentistry), etc.), we wouldn't have
the problem of disrespect for science. The greatest evidence that
science is true is that we can use it to build these incredible
technological devices. If these people knew what a theory was, they
would realize that evolution is just as valid as general relativity,
or quantum mechanics. Those are "just theories" just as evolution is
"just a theory". But when people don't understand science they think
that theory means that scientists don't know what they are talking
about.
> Are we not teaching what "science" means? Are we not teaching what
> the scientific method is? Are we not showing kids the evidence? The
> problem is that there is TONS of evidence for the age of the earth, or
> evolution, or plate techtonics, or.... How could we present all of
> that during the 12 years we educate our kids? We would have to stop
> teaching things like insect collection and naming whale or dinosaur
> species, or kinds of rocks. Kids love that stuff, but it may be
> causing us to miss the big picture. What do you think?
We must not be teaching science very well because I see zoology majors
in college saying that mutations violate the laws of physics because
"they aren't supposed to happen". This is quite a serious situation
and shows that one thing that is not being taught is the unity and
coherence of the different nautural sciences. Nothing in chemistry
violates physics, and nothing in biology violates chemistry. We are
going to have to teach this concept to kids so they understand that
nothing violates physics, not life, not thought, not anything. I have
come up with an education plan, but its more than 12 years. In my
world, kids would start at 3 years old. We would have K3 (pre-pre
school),K4 (pre- school), K5 (kindergarten), and grades 1-12. Grades
K3-K5 would primarily be for teaching basic stuff about language
(phonics, etc.) and finding learning disabilities and fixing them. The
kids would be building skills during this time period necessary for
the learning they will be doing. after they have been "prepared"
during this 3 year period, they will progress through an intensive 12
year education. The education will of course involve other things like
math, history,and language, but here is the rundown on the science
part:
GRADE SCIENCE TAUGHT
1 Basic introduction. Learn about the earth, Universe, evolution,
but
focus on facts and not too much on methods.
2 Begin to teach how we know what we know, and teach against
psuedoscience. Continue teaching about evolution, with strong
emphasis
on the evidence.
3 Students should understand molecules, atoms, and protons and
neutrons by
this time. They should understand why we know this as well.
Continue
teaching basic earth and space science with emphasis on how we
know.
Also begin to explain how their modern world is based on
science.
4 Students should understand the big bang, evolution, plate
techtonics,and
the fact that protons and neutrons are made of quarks. After
understanding some basic physics (as well as why we know this),
they
should be able to understand why we think the big bang happened.
They should appreciate that their entire world is based on
science, and
everything they take for granted was given to them thanks to
science.
5 A "high school" level course on physical science. Introduce
relativity.
6 A "high school" level course on biology.
7 A "high school" level course on chemistry.
8 Physics I (Newtonian dynamics)
9 Physics II(Electrodynamics and Thermodynamics)
10 Physics III(Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics)
11 Physics IV (Deeper quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry, and
quantum
biology [tie in physics with everything else])
12 Final Science. All of science should be tied together. Students
should
be able to explain almost everything by physics.
I know this seems like alot, but the idea is start early and educate
deeply. If you had to argue against people who think that mutations
violate physics because they "aren't supposed to happen," you would be
concerned too. If we don't do something, we are going to slip into a
scientific recession. It is truly sad to see the state of our
education system. But if we redo our entire education system, we could
be on the verge of unimaginable scientific revolution.
johac
LisaK...@hotmail.com (LisaKay) wrote:
Good! That section deals with some of the more common arguments against
evolution.
>
> > Perhaps you should have the kids take a look at it too. It explains many
> > of the terms such as theory, hypothesis, evidence, proof, etc. It also
> > describes how the scientific method works. Although the site is designed
> > primarily for teachers, HS students should have no trouble comprehending
> > it.
> >
> > As far as their attitudes towards science, perhaps you could arrange to
> > have them talk to a scientist. I'm sure that it might be possible to get
> > someone from a local university, industry, or a government lab, to give
> > a short presentation on how scientists work and cover some topics as
> > designing experiments, reviewing data, publishing, the peer review
> > process, etc. They could also talk about what it means to work in
> > science, the joys, the frustrations, the effort, The thrill of seeing an
> > experiment work out the way that you predicted, etc. I'm a chemist who
> > has been in the field for over 35 years now, mostly in industrial
> > biotech labs. I would love to talk to the kids if the opportunity were
> > to present it self, and I'm sure that others would too.
> >
> I'll look into that!
> Thanks!
Glad to be of help.
>
> > I'm rambling, but these are just some ideas.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -LisaKay
> > > aa #2054
> > >
>
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Ron Okimoto
> aa #2054
Humans are born scientists. It is an innate ability that we have.
For some reason most people stop depending on it except on an
unconscious level. They stop depending on themselves to figure out
needed information, instead, they depend on being told information.
Science is simply the process of learning something about nature when
no one knows the answer and you have to figure it out for yourself.
That is all science is. The problem is that what we learn about
nature is incomplete and our inferences can be incomplete or just
plain wrong. This is why if you can't test an inference it has little
value in science. The testing is the most important part of the
scientific process. It is also one of the most important
distinguishing features between science and philosophy. Philosophers
can literally argue the same things for centuries and not come to a
consensus, but scientists design experiments to test their ideas and
get decently firm answers that nearly everyone can agree on.
There is good science and there is bad science. Right now things like
intelligent design (ID) are bad science. ID isn't even as useful as
random guessing in learning things about nature because the assertions
and inferences are not testable. Not only that, but the basic idea of
intelligent design in nature has a 100% failure rate. Whenever it has
been proposed and science has been able to test the notion it has
failed testing and been replaced by some natural mechanism that can
explain the data. Everyone knows that this is a fact because you
cannot point to a single thing that some ID type designer has been
shown to be responsible for in nature. There isn't a single example
of a verifiable ID success. The seasons do not change because some
god takes a vacation, the discrepancies Newton could not explain were
not due to the action of angels etc. If there were a verified ID
success we wouldn't be having the current stupidity trying to disrupt
education. We would already be teaching ID. So not only are these
guys pushing something that they can't support, they are pushing
something that has never worked. If science depended on inferences
with a 100% failure rate, progress would be nonexistent or due to just
plain dumb luck.
On the unconscious level people do not depend on inferences with 100%
failure rates to process information in their daily lives that allow
them to drive their cars or select food items at the supermarket.
They depend on inferences that work most of the time. Science is no
different. There is no reason to teach students that it is practical
to think some other way. Why should we expand the definition of
science so that it can include methods with 100% failure rates?
Shouldn't you have one success before you claim that your methodology
should be taught as good science?
I developed a graduate level class that I called Problem Solving. I
just took classic scientific papers in molecular biology and dissected
them in class, and then made the students work on problem sets where
they would have to use the techniques in the paper to get the answer.
I was surprised to find that even at this level some students did not
know where to start in figuring out an answer that isn't in some book.
They seemed to lack some basic concepts of science. I went to
WalMart and bought a couple of 100 piece junior jigsaw puzzles. I put
these puzzles together before class and was surprised to find that the
pictures may have been different, but the cut out puzzle pattern was
identical. Instead of breaking the students into two groups like I
had intended I took the four corner pieces of one puzzle and replaced
them in the other puzzle. I had the students put together the puzzle
in class. There were several points that I wanted the students to get
and I would make them as I saw students doing certain things.
1. When all the pieces get turned over it is very difficult to figure
out what the complete puzzle looks like. I make the point that it is
very difficult to come up with a general theory based on what is
currently known about the puzzle. Science breaks the problem down
into smaller problems that are currently testable. To start the
puzzle the students have to make certain assumptions and then they
have to test those assumptions by trying to put the pieces together.
Some assumptions are better than others. The students might find that
grouping by color often fools them, but there is always (I've done
this a half a dozen times, and do it for the honors class that I teach
too) a student that will assemble the edge pieces. I can point out
that this guy has the advantage because he/she has color pattern and
an easily distinguishable shape that enables the student to make fewer
tests. This is simple hypothesis testing. You take something that is
known make inferences and then test your inferences by taking the
piece and trying to put it where you think that it goes.
2. When most of the students have failed sometimes and succeeded at
others in getting a few pieces to match up I ask them why they make so
many mistakes in trying to fit the pieces together. Aside from just
guessing their inferences are not perfect and their prior knowledge in
attempting to pick a piece that will fit, is flawed. Many pieces look
like they will fit because of our search parameters or initial
hypotheses, but a lot of them are just close, but do not really fit.
They did not take the time, or they didn't have the ability to test
all the parameters of the piece before trying it. That is how science
is. We have to test the fit of the piece, we can't just let our
inferences and assumptions be the final word. If you can't test it,
it can be wrong.
3. As more pieces come together I make the comment that we can combine
the smaller parts that we have been able to piece together to begin to
get a better idea of what the complete puzzle will look like. This is
how our scientific theories form. The validity of a theory is based
on quality of the data and inferences that it is based on. The
students can see that as more and more is added to the puzzle the
theory becomes clearer and more defensible. I ask them if having an
overall "theory" of what the puzzle looks like helps them in
assembling it. Just like having their initial hypotheses about color
and edge shape helped them start, the "theory" can help them finish.
4. At about this time someone notices that the corners are missing. I
ask them why they think that the corners are missing. I want them to
think about how they can make that inference. We do things like that
all the time in science. I then toss out the wrong corners from the
matching puzzle. They fit in the corners, but they don't match the
puzzle picture. I do this to make the point that sometimes we know
what piece should exist, but we can't find it or can't confirm it's
existence so we put in approximations. The corner pieces may not be
the exact ones that we need, but they can still be used to anchor the
sides and make it easier to assemble the rest of the puzzle.
5. Before the puzzle is complete, but most students have a pretty good
idea of what it is. I say that this is what a scientific theory is.
We may not know everything, but it is the best approximation that we
can come up with at the time. I also point out that as a theory
becomes more complete it gets easier to place the remaining pieces.
This is just how science uses theories and how it continues to test
them. If the theories begin to fail we change them until they work.
There is no scientific theory of creationism or ID because we can't
put the pieces together well enough to convince anyone that the
picture that is claimed to exist really exists. In the puzzle example
the color pattern and shape were useful ideas to base selection of
pieces for testing. ID can't claim this type of success because
whenever pieces have been selected for testing using ID notions we
haven't been able to place the pieces with any more accuracy than just
plain dumb luck. In fact as our understanding grows ID "theories"
fail and are replaced. The reason that you do not see ID in the Ohio
model lesson plan is due to the fact that "teach the controversy" is
more about denial than skepticism. Scientists are automatic skeptics
or they would not test their ideas. One reason that ID doesn't make
the grade is because science can't test it. The scepticism of ID is
just a ruse because they don't really care about such things. This is
obvious because they know that since they can't test their assertions
they know what real scepticism would tell them about their views.
There are things that our mental ability can take advantage of. You
shouldn't have to learn everything on your own. There probably
wouldn't be much of a human race if everyone had to determine that
eating a certain mushroom will kill you. You shouldn't forget how to
figure these things out for yourself just because your teachers and
parents keep spoon feeding you information.
Ron Okimoto
Sven Silow
raitim dispela tingting:
>>Which is proof positive that God created the universe, all with the
>>false appearance of great age, LAST WEDNESDAY! (or was it Thursday?)
>
>Thursday (though there are some Tuesday heretics):
Since Jan 1st 1995 last-Tuesdayism has been unified with
last-Thursdayism, because on that day the Line Islands started to use
UTC+14. So when it is Thursday 00.30 in the Line Islands, it is
Tuesday 23.30 in Samoa (UTC-11). However, this unified theory implies
that in most of the rest of the world it actually was Wednesday.
Sven
R.Schenck
> "R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fcb1069.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > "Alan Jeffery" <observa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<AmLac.1303$d%6.3...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
snip
> > > by asking questions, and finding answers, in the field. If you like, a
> > > gentle intro to the scientific method.
> >
> > Everywhere in your country kids upto ~12 years old allways learn
> > science by being taken out of the schools and into the 'field'? Who
> > asks the questions and who decides what is the answer? Are the
> > students expected to re-create modern science on its own?
> > >
> emphasis on discovery. That is, you can be asked, and ask, simple
> questions, and by doing "research" you can find the answers. In other words
> that science does not depend on authority. Do you have a problem with such
> an approach?
I don't recall saying I had a 'problem' with it. The way you
described it originally didn't seem reasonable at all. I don't know
why you think that primary schools throughout the US do things so
differently here. They usually don't send kids out into fields every
day, but they perform experiments and otherwise import nature into the
classroom so they can study it there. Its not like primary school
kids are learning science here by sitting in underground bunkers
memorizing texts word for word or something. Many teachers here try
to innovate and expand beyond the state requirments. Its not all some
intellectual wasteland.
snip
Scott Draper
deeply. >>
Anything not "deeply" learned will be forgotten, or worse,
misunderstood.
I like your program.