JS Mill, free speech, and creationism/global warming

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Now, I'll admit that we probably got that much too. But it was a throwaway example. Even in undergraduate physics classes I was taught stuff which I later learned was viewed as an approximation by current researchers.

That's fine with me. My teachers were attempting to get me to understand a less-complicated view before I was able to learn a more-complicated view...

There's a world of difference between that and creationism vs. biology.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


They taught us that these were all approximations. In fact, my teacher was pretty emphatic on that point.

And how did that help you?

Those who can understand the idea that science is a living thing, and can reasonably judge the confidence level of certain statements etc. are not going to be hurt by it. When they need to learn it they will. Those who can't are just going to get confused by it.

High school students are not part of the scientific debate. Neither are undergraduates in physics, at least.

Graduate students, postdocs and professors are generally the only ones that count...

[Kuciwalker]

And how did that help you?

It gives us the right context to accept the more advanced theories.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If anything, sincerity.

Who appointed you judge of sincerity?

And the fact that by denying it we may be causing much deeper harm to scientific debate and the educational system than the comparatively minor harm of many non-scientists disagreeing with the academic consensus.

I was of the impression you were making an argument from liberal principles, not an utilitarian one?

Anyway, I don't think we're doing harm to either, or at least less than would be done by allowing teach-the-controversy (which I feel confident would amount to teaching creationism with a few disparaging references to darwinism in a great many places) would do.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


There's a world of difference between that and creationism vs. biology.

Quantitatively, yes. Not qualitatively. There are intermediate steps between evolution and creationism. Maybe there's only the appearance of evolution (i.e. it's a useful framework a la Copernicus). Maybe evolution happens between some species, but not others. etc.

Nobody gets taught evolution in high school, goes on to a PhD in biology, and never along the way figures out that evolution is not a god-given theory.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


There's a lot more disagreement among experts in econ than among experts in biology.

Education should reflect this.

alot of economists would suggest that this is because the social science equivalent of creationism has a stronger position in the academy and has prevented economics departments from pushing the unscientific thought out into sociology depts, the way bio dept can push stuff out into religion depts.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

And how did that help you?

It gives us the right context to accept the more advanced theories.

Again, bull****.

If you've got such a weak mind that you need a teacher to tell you to question stuff then you aren't cut out to be a scientist anyway.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


alot of economists would suggest that this is because the social science equivalent of creationism has a stronger position in the academy and has prevented economics departments from pushing the unscientific thought out into sociology depts, the way bio dept can push stuff out into religion depts.

I don't trust anybody who calls anything having to do with human beings beyond physiology "science"...

[Jon Miller]

I was told that physics had problems where Quantum and Relativity (I don't think that they made the distinction between General and Special) came together. This was in college.

I didn't do Quantum Field Theory, or even all of standard nonRelativistic Quantum Mechanics until Graduate school. And I still haven't taken GR.

In highschool I don't think Quantum Mechanics got even so much as a mention? I think Special Relativity might have gotten a mention, but definitely no discussion. It was the 11th grade/12th grade class. Of course, we didn't really have an accellerated Science program (Physics and Chemistry and Biology 2 were always offered, Chemistry 2 was often offered, Chemistry 3 and Biology 3 (which I think weren't really that much more advanced then normal) were offered sort of independently for very advanced students... most didn't get beyond Biology).

Jon Miller
(the only normal accelerated classes were Math (worthless) and English (good actually))

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Why can't this be applied to politics, too?

Because the common man hates elitism. They'd destroy any politician that talked about them in this way. And they'll try to destroy the scientific establishment if they ever come to believe that a majority of scientists think of them like KH does...

see, people really DONT like having their tax dollars used to convince their kids that their deeply held beliefs are wrong. Forcing the right answer down their throats just creates resentment and conflict, as apparently JS Mill realized. But then JS Mill wasnt a Tory, as some folks here seem to be.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I don't trust anybody who calls anything having to do with human beings beyond physiology "science"...

well I sure hope youre never put in a position of authority over an economics department. Logic, mathematics, methodology dont disappear just because the objects of study are complex.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


WTF?

The reason why you don't teach creationnism and ID in the States is not because we think we have the truth or because we're infallible, but because of the first ammendment:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish a state religion or prefer a certain religion (the "Establishment Clause"), prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Or you propose to show that creationnism or intelligent design isn't a religious viewpoint, that its actually a scientific viewpoint?

Creationnism is obviously a religious viewpoint and thus as no place in a biology classroom. And even if you can show that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis, its just that: an hypothesis. Even worse: its not backed by any facts I know of. Why not teach Lamarck instead: even if we rejected it, I'm sure its backed by more facts than intelligent design.

I have no idea who Feyerabend is. I don't have an answer.

A fizisist who became a filosopher. The worse enemy of science according to some people. He argued, based in part on Mill, that we should separate Science from the State

[Drake Tungsten]

see, people really DONT like having their tax dollars used to convince their kids that their deeply held beliefs are wrong. Forcing the right answer down their throats just creates resentment and conflict, as apparently JS Mill realized. But then JS Mill wasnt a Tory, as some folks here seem to be.

QFT

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Why can't this be applied to politics, too?

Because the common man hates elitism. They'd destroy any politician that talked about them in this way. And they'll try to destroy the scientific establishment if they ever come to believe that a majority of scientists think of them like KH does...

I'll be the first to admit that I should never be given the opportunity to explain to the general public exactly how worthwhile their opinions are on any scientific matter.

The heads of major research institutions and agencies have to swallow their pride and hide their real opinions because the truth is not politically expedient.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


well I sure hope youre never put in a position of authority over an economics department. Logic, mathematics, methodology dont disappear just because the objects of study are complex.

Parts of economics are scientific. Parts are not particularly scientific. Parts are pseudoscientific.

I don't deny that we might, at some point, have a much more scientific understanding of economics. I just don't think we're there yet.

People are really complicated. I like dealing with simple things. Easier on my brain.