Hey, just looking for an explanation of the "triumphalism" of scientific method. It aint perfect, but only religious types use bugles or trumpets in the symbolism of their collective ideology. All science is dogmatic, btw. Everything is whats currently known, until further stuff shows up to suggest new paths, and the resistance is usually fearfull. But wheres the triumphalism? Makes it sound like somebody actually won something, rather than found something, came up with a testable theorum, a new idea of some description. What exactly was won, Zzz?
Nothing at all was lost....from my perspective. Only potential gain may have been missed. If you didn't win something previously not revealed to you, it would not be because you were beaten.....it would only be because you were playing a game....I was not. Surrender, as I used the term is not the same as being vanquished by any means, as in expansion of the mind and evolution of human consciousness toward perfection there is no score keeping taking place, no competition....humanity whether they understand it or not, are all on the same side of the battlefield against the sin of pride and ignorance.
Then do you want public school children not to be taught Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Are the children to come to understand that theory by themselves? E=mc2 resulted directly from that scientific Theory, would that too not be taught by your reasoning, as it is based upon a scientific Theory? How school children would be better served in any way for not being taught such Theories, is not in my view demonstrated by mis-naming them as a dogmatic belief systems. Teaching and learning what is known only as fact, but eliminating what is possible or should be possible from well substantiated explanations of those facts in the form of scientific Theory, would deprive everyone of knowledge and progress and present little in the way of any new factual discovery. It would also steal from the minds of the young especially, any ability to develop and grow new fact based understandings of the world around them. Biological evolution is a fact. Presumably you would want that fact taught in school. The Theory of Evolution as explained scientifically through Origin of Species is supported by fact and also based upon corroborated scientific Theory. From that scientific Therory arise considerable known facts, offering fantastic advancements in medical science. Neither Biological evolution nor the Theory of Evolution deals with the origin of life. Nor do they include any propositions about atheists or theists or Gods or Creation. Intelligent Design / Creationism is is to do with unqualified speculation through a process of indoctrination by ideology. It is not at all the fact based process found by scientific study or scientific Theory. Teach facts, science, the Scientific Method and scientific Theory in science class. Teach things of a certain philosophical inclination and conjecture, in Religious Education class where they belong. Let the children then come to their own conclusions.
Let's assume for a moment, Z, that you have the common perception that you have a self, a seperate ego, a thinker who has thoughts. So, if I attack those thoughts, call them moronic for example, then I'm not actually attacking you, now am I? Or, on the other hand, let's assume you're more sophisticated than that, and believe the self and "other" are actually one. Then I can't attack your moronic , inflexible, shifty thinking process without attacking you, can I? Anyway, let me know which way you want that. I'd just like to add that our children did in fact come up with their own theories, as you asked. They spent a lifetime observing, experimenting, repeating, and asking others to do the same and confirm. They then arrived at the Theory of Evolution. By the way, you have zero clue about the difference between how a scientist uses theory, and how you use it.
An end of year 'GOD' thread...wow right on time...things have not changed around here... Pabst, Stu, ZZtop, Defags, surfturd ....Merry Christmas to you'll
Thanks for the help. I'd like to see this thread exceed the previous one. Somewhere above 300 replies iirc.
Then do you want public school children not to be taught Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Are the children to come to understand that theory by themselves? I doubt that most children (if maybe but 1 in thousands), and very few adults could truly explain Einstein's work in their own words (rather than regurgitate his statements). I doubt most high school teachers are genuinely equipped to really teach Einstein level physics beyond reading from a textbook. However, this topic is about biological theory of how biological organisms came to be or adapt to the environment....so the attempt to distract away from that topic is duly noted. E=mc2 resulted directly from that scientific Theory, would that too not be taught by your reasoning, as it is based upon a scientific Theory? Memorization of E=mc2 is useless without genuine understanding of what that formula suggests, and without being able to work each and every mathematical step of that theory, there is not much value at a rudimentary level that I can see beyond saying that Einstein's work was at the time revolutionary. It is a nice history lesson, but for all but the gifted, it leads to a vanity of "I know Einstein's theory" type of thought process. Imagine the typical high school student saying to Einstein "I understand your theory in the same way you do." My guess is that he would be amused.... How school children would be better served in any way for not being taught such Theories, is not in my view demonstrated by mis-naming them as a dogmatic belief systems. Taught, or offered? Big difference.... Teaching and learning what is known only as fact, but eliminating what is possible or should be possible from well substantiated explanations of those facts in the form of scientific Theory, would deprive everyone of knowledge and progress and present little in the way of any new factual discovery. Well substantiated. Now there is the rub. I have not seen any theory of evolution of the species from a single first primordial species substantiated at all. It would also steal from the minds of the young especially, any ability to develop and grow new fact based understandings of the world around them. Teaching someone how to think critically is a far cry from telling them what to think, or telling them what the current wave of scientists think. Biological evolution is a fact. Presumably you would want that fact taught in school. The biological process that is fact, yes of course teach that. It is a fact that biological organisms do attempt adapt to the environment when it is necessary for their survival. It is not a fact that all the species we see now have evolved from lower species. The Theory of Evolution as explained scientifically through Origin of Species is supported by fact and also based upon corroborated scientific Theory. Supported by fact? How about rationalized as predictive and explanatory of what happened in the past based on one view of the data with a specific conclusion in mind? From that scientific Therory arise considerable known facts, offering fantastic advancements in medical science. From theory, no facts arise. Scientific facts are the product of observation or mathematical calculations. Neither Biological evolution nor the Theory of Evolution deals with the origin of life. Agree there. Nor do they include any propositions about atheists or theists or Gods or Creation. The implication is there from the past knowledge and history of the Scopes trial. We are not living in a vacuum of the past events and beliefs, the conflict, and the prevailing belief systems of man from apes and lower species thinking.....right or wrong, that have come from Darwinism. Intelligent Design / Creationism is is to do with unqualified speculation through a process of indoctrination by ideology. It is not at all the fact based process found by scientific study or scientific Theory. Ahh, now the heart of the matter. Who is actually qualified to determine what is "qualified" to appear as theory? We have elevated scientists and their theories to the level of scripture in this society....they are to be accepted alone because a group of scientists deem them worthy? Talk about brainwashing youth.... Teach facts, science, the Scientific Method and scientific Theory in science class. Sure, and teach all the flaws and failures of the scientific method, and why the need is greatest among the real scientist to continue to hold doubt over any theory that is lacking proof complete. Teach things of a certain philosophical inclination and conjecture, in Religious Education class where they belong. Impossible to separate science from its philosophical implications. Any reasonable student will ask why along the way, and at some point the science teacher will honestly say "we don't know, it is our best guess." Best guessing, and the acceptance of best guessing is a philosophy in itself as relates to man's existence and origin. It is not necessary to have any theory of biological process to observe the facts of biological processes. Let the children then come to their own conclusions. Of course, and let them be fully educated in order to do so. In the days of Plato students had to go through much study before they were introduced to advanced concepts. They even had to have physical training to make sure they were of sound body as well as mind. Now we see little but regurgitation of and memorization of "facts" in order to pass examinations, with little understanding of the real value and place a scientific mind has in life, and how to develop balanced human beings who can contribute to society on all levels...not just end up being social misfits and nerdy types who have no ability to see the forest for the trees.
Stating that someone's thougths are moronic, demonstrate that the writer has not the ability to show via logic and common sense in a manner so plain that the reader would naturally come to that conclusion on their own. Showing someone to be innept and or a fool carries a greater weight than simply pronoucing them to be one.... You have self elevated yourself to the level of "expert" in the "proper" use of the scientific approach. Those who do have real expertise generaly have no need to tell others they have some superior knowledge...it is simply obivous and presents itself like light as to darkness. So please, I am asking you again, stop making this a personal issue, please and discuss the issues. My level of "mastery" of scientific approach is not the issue of this thread.
Could you explain a little further to clarify. Do you consider it not right to teach Einstein's Theory of General Relativity because no one might understand or be able to explain it, or because it is a scientific Theory? Your argument, which I quoted and was directly addressing, was not on that topic...your reference to a sudden change of topic is recognized as misdirection. You've just said Einstein's Theory is a distraction away from the topic, so why do you continue with it? But as you have done so, would you condemn everyone in school to ignorance of it, because you think it can't be understood? I put my question to you again. Not to teach The General Theory of Relativity because you say no one generally can understand it, or because it is a scientific Theory? I would tend to agree on the whole with your first premise, facts should be taught. You wrote "I prefer facts be taught"...but here you seem to be suggesting they be offered. So please be clear, which is it you prefer now? Those are not mutually exclusive in science. The scientific method essentially requires critical thinking. Or perhaps you are suggesting students should be told what the ID'ers think. So you say facts are indeed to be taught and not offered. "The biological process that is fact" you state, but biological evolution ?... Do you say that is not a fact? That fact you describe as a biological process is generally known as biological evolution. and it was arrived at by the application of different scientific Theories. Facts form the basis for the scientific Theory - Origin of the Species. Now are you saying no Theories should be taught in case they throw up new facts, or because you don't like scientific Theories, or because you say no one wil ever understand them in the way you think they should? Why would you want to restrict teaching only to what you determine to be facts, and remove the learning process that allows scientific Theory to produce those very facts in the first place. Is it because of ID'ers wish to foster a misunderstanding for the word theory and the meaning of scientific Theory, and create some opportunity, as they see it, for them to try and slot in an unsubstantiated theory of their own which they want to hold above all other learning?