Why do we want to teach our children science?

[RealityCheck]

It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...

I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion

Incorrect. Evolution is science. The facts of evolution exist in abundance. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for those facts.

You cannot simply pick a theory you disagree with and label it as a "world-view" to then summarily dismiss it. It's science as much as gravity is... unless you think "gravity" is just a world-view, too.

 

[BarryDesborough]

It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...

I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion

Creationism should be taught, among other religious ideas, IMO. Education is about equipping people with the means of understanding the world around them. In America and in countries with a strong Moslem influence, creation is a significant factor. But it should be taught in a way that educates people about it, rather than indoctrinating them in it. The same goes for science.

 

[ReverendDG]

It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...

go look up what an opinion is, and what science is, also look up what a world view is.
none of those the same thing.
evolution is not a worldview, it can be part of one, it is not an opinion, it is observed so it is a fact, it also has a theory to explain it, so it is science.

it isn't an opinion, since it can be wrong or right, opinions are neither.
you can have an opinion based on wrong things but not a wrong opinion.

I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion

so you don't know what creationism is? it is not a religion, it can be a doctrine of a religion.
i want creationism taught in schools, in the right class, a comparative religions class.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually gravity and evolution have basically as much scientific consensus as it is possible for a scientific theory to get.

So did Thalidomide.

 

[sfs]

It is not science,

Don't be ridiculous -- of course it's science. Time for my standard rant . . . The National Academy of Sciences thinks evolution is science. So does the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian, the American Museum of Natural History, the National Institutes of Health, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University Professors, every major university in the country, Science magazine, Nature and every genetics journal in the world.

You don't think evolution is science.

What do you know that all of these scientists don't?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you know that all of these scientists don't?

That the Flood was global.

 

[jpcedotal]

The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth, NOT some billions of years of slow erosion...

Infinite time allows every theory to be plausible because one variable can be any value that makes the formula work. Embedded time, not clock time, should be the focus of real science.

Billions of years is a cop-out and allows bad scientific method to become plausible theory.

 

[Coelo]

Evolution is science.

If this is true then that is a very sad commentary on science. From what I know about science they tend not to be able to deliver on what they say they can deliver on. Hype for them is pretty much just the nature of the beast. Like Dr Frankenstein. It may be amazing that he brought the dead back to life. Although all he really did was to create a monster. Look at Science Daily for example. Far to often what you read there is just hype.

 

[Coelo]

The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth, NOT some billions of years of slow erosion...

The Grand Canyon is a result of plate tectonics that began 250 million years ago with the breakup of the Super Continent of Pangaea.

 

[jpcedotal]

The Grand Canyon is a result of plate tectonics that began 250 million years ago with the breakup of the Super Continent of Pangaea.

Before the Flood there was the Super Continent. When the waters rushed up from the depths, this landmass was broken up so violently that when the water receded, the seven pieces were located where they are now...give or take a few feet.

 

[jpcedotal]

Now, could the Grand Canyon be a result of this violent breakage instead of rushing water leaving the desert? Absolutely...either way, the Flood is behind it....not billions of years.

 

[Elendur]

The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth, NOT some billions of years of slow erosion...

Infinite time allows every theory to be plausible because one variable can be any value that makes the formula work. Embedded time, not clock time, should be the focus of real science.

Billions of years is a cop-out and allows bad scientific method to become plausible theory.

Before the Flood there was the Super Continent. When the waters rushed up from the depths, this landmass was broken up so violently that when the water receded, the seven pieces were located where they are now...give or take a few feet.

Then surely, as you claimed that the water rushed back, you could tell us where to look for that water?

 

[jpcedotal]

Then surely, as you claimed that the water rushed back, you could tell us where to look for that water?

One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood. Think about it. The people of the earth had never seen rain before it rained 40 days and nights. The environment changed with the Flood. Waters that were held in the sky was released and the water cycle began.

The world changed drastically during this 40 day period...so drastically, certain large reptiles could no longer survive in a drier air than what was before the Flood.

There was no extra water...just a new cycle to keep water moving between states

 

[BarryDesborough]

One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood. Think about it. The people of the earth had never seen rain before it rained 40 days and nights. The environment changed with the Flood. Waters that were held in the sky was released and the water cycle began.

The world changed drastically during this 40 day period...so drastically, certain large reptiles could no longer survive in a drier air than what was before the Flood.

There was no extra water...just a new cycle to keep water moving between states

There was no flood.

http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Glenn+Morton's+Pages+-+Home

 

[Split Rock]

So did Thalidomide.

Uhhh.... No. Thalidomide did not have over a century of research behind it.

 

[Elendur]

One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood. Think about it. The people of the earth had never seen rain before it rained 40 days and nights. The environment changed with the Flood. Waters that were held in the sky was released and the water cycle began.

The world changed drastically during this 40 day period...so drastically, certain large reptiles could no longer survive in a drier air than what was before the Flood.

There was no extra water...just a new cycle to keep water moving between states

Umm... Where on earth would get the idea that it didn't rain before?

Do you have any evidence that "certain large reptiles" couldn't survive in this air humidity?

 

[Split Rock]

The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth, NOT some billions of years of slow erosion...

Rushing water for 40 days cannot cut through that much solid rock, and if it was the flood that layed down those layers in the first place (the usual explanation) it could not have solidified in time in any case.

Infinite time allows every theory to be plausible because one variable can be any value that makes the formula work. Embedded time, not clock time, should be the focus of real science.

What is "embedded time?" Give us a definition, Mr "Real Science."

Billions of years is a cop-out and allows bad scientific method to become plausible theory.

Wrong yet again. Billions of years is a conclusion based on the physical evidence.

Before the Flood there was the Super Continent. When the waters rushed up from the depths, this landmass was broken up so violently that when the water receded, the seven pieces were located where they are now...give or take a few feet.

And then fried every living thing on the planet, including Noah and his family. Where in the bible does it say this happened, cause you certainly have no scientific support for this fantasy.

Now, could the Grand Canyon be a result of this violent breakage instead of rushing water leaving the desert? Absolutely...either way, the Flood is behind it....not billions of years.

Yeah.. your guesses and handwaving are superior to over a century of scientific investigation, as well as anything the bible authors wrote.... right?

One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood. Think about it. The people of the earth had never seen rain before it rained 40 days and nights. The environment changed with the Flood. Waters that were held in the sky was released and the water cycle began.

The world changed drastically during this 40 day period...so drastically, certain large reptiles could no longer survive in a drier air than what was before the Flood.

There was no extra water...just a new cycle to keep water moving between states

You're just making this stuff up as you go along... aren't you?

Armchair creationism at its best, folks! Far superior to all this "science" stuff...

 

[TheBeardedDude]

But your basic every day conundrum will be ~ is this detox diet a waste of money? ~ Should I vaccinate my kids? ~ is this journalist giving credible information on climate change?
No one coming out of high school science can be expected to be able to rationally assess if the last 150 years of biology and 200 years of earth science and 400 years of astronomy and physics is all wrong. No one human even with PhDs in all of these areas could be expected to reconstruct these disciplines from first principles. Some stuff is taught as fact because it's passed a threshold where denial is simply perverse. Evolution, gravity, germ theory, optics, quantum field theory, plate tectonics, stellar fusion, geologic eras, electromagnetism, valence bonding etc have made the grade in this respect. They can be taught as fact with the confidence of massive amounts of consilient evidence despite there being much more, even fundamental stuff, to learn in each and every case. The level at which these things break down into competing hypotheses is well above that which is taught in high school.

At the high school level we should be confident in saying, these are some of the facts and theories you need to just learn and accept in order for any of the other stuff to make sense.

No disagreement here. I think the best way to teach the process of science is as a case study for most things. Which means teaching things from first principles onward. Sure, to save time you will inevitably have to shorten discussions but the experience will stick better.

 

[Split Rock]

If this is true then that is a very sad commentary on science. From what I know about science they tend not to be able to deliver on what they say they can deliver on. Hype for them is pretty much just the nature of the beast. Like Dr Frankenstein. It may be amazing that he brought the dead back to life. Although all he really did was to create a monster. Look at Science Daily for example. Far to often what you read there is just hype.

"Science" doesn't claim to deliver anything. Science is a process by which we learn about the physical world around us. Does it work? You tell us, as you use a computer and internet, in your air-conditioned room, while listening to the radio or watching television. Yeah... it works.

 

[Naraoia]

Why do we want to teach our children science?

Apart from the obvious, materialistic and mundane reasons, what might we hope to impart to our children, even if they never go into science and science-related careers?

We are all surrounded by people wanting us to believe what they are telling us. From the relatively trivial, such as the astrology pages and the claims of fringe medicine, through the clamour of the advertising industry and the appeals of politicians, right up to the ranting of the fanatic and the outright (one could almost say honest) fraud of the con man - at least the con artist is not interested in leaving us with permanent illusions. All these people, for their own motives, want to persuade us to believe what they have to say, sometimes in the belief that they are doing it for our own benefit. But we require the means of evaluating what they have to say for ourselves.

How then, are we to equip our children with the critical faculties required for this sort of evaluation? Good scholarship is a feature of all subjects when they are taught well, but science is the epitome of subjects in which the appeal to authority, "Take my word for it", has no final say. Neither is the final say granted to the armchair philosopher, the clever rhetorician, the appealer to emotion or the snake-oil salesman. Instead, we demand, "Show me!"

Unfortunately, it's not so simple in practice. No school student can test the entire contents of the science curriculum. We have to ensure that the scientific method, with its peer-review process and its principles of repeatability, falsifiability, parsimony and consilience has been applied to what is being taught. We have to be able to know that our scientists and science teachers are faithful to these methods. Only then are our teachers able to impart the heart of science - the attitude of "Show me!" Only then can our children be equipped to reflexively raise an eyebrow to claims such as, "This crystal energy will heal you", "You can trust me with your vote", and "This is the sure way to Paradise."

This is a beautiful post.

At the high school level we should be confident in saying, these are some of the facts and theories you need to just learn and accept in order for any of the other stuff to make sense.

Yes, but I don't think Barry or BeardedDude advocate not teaching some things as fact. I think their main point - with which I completely agree - is that teaching how scientific facts are established is at least as important as the specific facts.

If this is true then that is a very sad commentary on science. From what I know about science they tend not to be able to deliver on what they say they can deliver on. Hype for them is pretty much just the nature of the beast. Like Dr Frankenstein. It may be amazing that he brought the dead back to life. Although all he really did was to create a monster. Look at Science Daily for example. Far to often what you read there is just hype.

Your post is a textbook example of a problem I've thought about a lot (and also, recently, wrote about).

In a nutshell: what you see in news articles and press releases is often (usually, even?) an inaccurate representation of how the scientists see their own work. A journalist or the guy at the press office is trying to generate publicity, sell an eye-catching story to non-specialists, and the writer probably isn't an expert in the field themselves. Therefore, simplification and hyping are pretty much inevitable.

If you, the non-specialist, had the time/interest/knowledge to read the studies themselves, you would often find them to be much more cautious and nuanced than the press release. Actually, even if the scientists do think their discovery changes the world, they'll probably tone their excitement down for publication because the rest of the community almost certainly won't share their enthusiasm. Which, in practical terms, means reviewers and readers of the paper might give overenthusiastic authors a painful reality check.