Montana students, teachers blast bill that would limit science education to ‘scientific fact’

[Estrid]

If we have reached the point where some things must never be questioned, then we have replaced science with dogma. A secular dogma, but dogma just the same.

If that ever happened, sure.
Dogma is the end of thought.
But " dogma", that's painting science with
religions brush- and perhaps
revealing the grave weakness in
any religion.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I almost posted about this. But the truth is that I've had to dial back my outrage-o-meter. If (as in this case) one legislator introduces a nutty bill, that is not newsworthy. If it survives a committee and may actually be voted on, then it starts to be newsworthy.

Frankly, I haven't been impressed by the arguments presented here against the bill.

The most potent argument is spelled out in the last line of OP, and Bradskii in #4.

The law starts from an incorrect definition of scientific theory; consequently, the law is either pointless (nobody teaches that kind of strawman 'theory' in science class, so it would have no effect) or harmful (it really would ban all scientific theories).

 

[Shemjaza]

Yet you stretch this to include orbits. That's so far out there, it's past the Kuiper Belt. The last time I checked, orbits are based in laws of motion that are based on repeatable laws of motion. If they weren't, it would be impossible to calculate them at all. You also stretched this to cover radioactive decay, something that's repeatable. Only when you get to cosmology are you drawing close to the issue, and only with evolution have you reached it.

Frankly, I haven't been impressed by the arguments presented here against the bill. It's possible to make strong arguments against it, but you aren't going to do it by claiming it would affect teaching of radioactive decay and something as basic as the movement of an object. I have the strong suspicion that the real issue is a member of a state legislature dared to say anything about what is taught. Horrors!

Biology and physicists have consistently and practically been supported by repeatable experiments and observations.

The use of orbital mechanics and relativity to explain the motion of the planets is one example... but the multitude repeatable of studies into structure and development of organisms and genetics are supported in considerable detail.

 

[Shemjaza]

What's repeatable? The orbits are never
zactly the same.

Exactly I guess not, but the variation can be studied and explored in the real world, just like the remnants of the big bang and the evolution of species.

 

[Bradskii]

Frankly, I haven't been impressed by the arguments presented here against the bill.

It's worded in a way that makes it scientifically nonsensical. It's not possible to determine exactly what the proponent of the bill is trying to do. That is the problem. There are very large alarm bells going off immediately when one reads it.

I think any decent reporter should have been asking the guy exactly what he is trying to do and give some examples of the science that he thinks should not be taught.

 

[Frank Robert]

Frankly, I haven't been impressed by the arguments presented here against the bill.

It should be obvious that the main trust purpose of the bill is meant to keep evolution out of public schools.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It should be obvious that the main trust purpose of the bill is meant to keep evolution out of public schools.

And any other science that make them feel icky.

 

[Estrid]

Exactly I guess not, but the variation can be studied and explored in the real world, just like the remnants of the big bang and the evolution of species.

Of course.
But our friendly creationists want
absolutes and perfect truth.

And any other science that make them feel icky.

That is the essence of creationist
anti science attitudes. It's all emotion,
of the self-indulgent kind.

 

[keith99]

I think it is worth pointing out this little gem from the bill.

The legislature intends for this section to be strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted.

 

[Tuur]

And any other science that make them feel icky.

Like eugenics? That was considered a science a century ago.

 

[Tuur]

It should be obvious that the main trust purpose of the bill is meant to keep evolution out of public schools.

That implies some things about the Theory of Evolution that you might not have intended.

 

[Tuur]

The law starts from an incorrect definition of scientific theory; consequently, the law is either pointless (nobody teaches that kind of strawman 'theory' in science class, so it would have no effect) or harmful (it really would ban all scientific theories).

Unfortunately, most science classes don't seem to teach the scientific method. Maybe the idea is to familiarize students with what's already known. But without the scientific method, it's no difference than teaching Galan's anatomy in the 13th Century.

Maybe that's why there hasn't been much criticism of this aspect of the bill. Since the scientific method is a type of inquiry and not a fact, technically the bill would outlaw it's teaching in science classes. But instead of decrying this, we have exaggerated claims about what the bill would prevent. Preventing the teaching about orbits? Uh-uh.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like eugenics? That was considered a science a century ago.

Is eugenics somehow related to the current issues in Montana that they are trying to avoid?

 

[Tuur]

Is eugenics somehow related to the current issues in Montana that they are trying to avoid?

Do you know what specific issues in Montana they are trying to avoid? Other than the OP and a link to the bill, all we've had here is speculation and hyperbole. If the specific issues they're trying to avoid has been stated by the legislature a cite should clear things up. Being that some seem convinced it would forbid teaching orbital mechanics, it's far more likely to assume it's to prevent things like eugenics. Eugenics was considered scientific a century ago, and definitely falls in the icky category.

Far more likely the issues are wokeness creeping at the edges of the sciences. Here's an opinion piece from 2021 that mentions some goings on at Harvard:

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/06/30/is_harvard_sacrificing_science_to_wokeness_783577.html

 

[Frank Robert]

That implies some things about the Theory of Evolution that you might not have intended.

Of course you would you think that.

 

[Frank Robert]

Do you know what specific issues in Montana they are trying to avoid?

It is obvious what they are.

Far more likely the issues are wokeness creeping at the edges of the sciences. Here's an opinion piece from 2021 that mentions some goings on at Harvard:

Are you really trying to claim Harvard made them do it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you know what specific issues in Montana they are trying to avoid?

Yes, we know who started the culture war against science and why.

The only person to testify for the bill, a law professor working in South Korea, understood it to prohibit the teaching of evolution, the Big Bang, and related topics, as NBC Montana (February 6, 2023) reported; he also described these topics as fraudulent and aimed at impeaching the veracity of the Holy Bible.

 

[Lazy and Tired]

De-lurking to ask a question. Would I be short-sighted if I supported bills like this because it would mean less competition for my child to get into a scientific degree program or a job in the technology area?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you know what specific issues in Montana they are trying to avoid? Other than the OP and a link to the bill, all we've had here is speculation and hyperbole. If the specific issues they're trying to avoid has been stated by the legislature a cite should clear things up. Being that some seem convinced it would forbid teaching orbital mechanics, it's far more likely to assume it's to prevent things like eugenics. Eugenics was considered scientific a century ago, and definitely falls in the icky category.

I'm sure the science of evolution is the main target, spoken or unspoken. It always is. Then there are the other sciences that challenge their preconceived notions, such as earth science (climate science and the old Earth) and astronomy (the age of the universe, the Big Bang), etc.

The bill is so sloppily written that in practice forbids many other scientific theories as the previous posters have noted. This must be a result of the authors vaunted home-school "education".

Far more likely the issues are wokeness creeping at the edges of the sciences. Here's an opinion piece from 2021 that mentions some goings on at Harvard:

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/06/30/is_harvard_sacrificing_science_to_wokeness_783577.html

1. Harvard is *not* in Montana.
2. This bill is about the public schools, not med schools.

 

[Shemjaza]

De-lurking to ask a question. Would I be short-sighted if I supported bills like this because it would mean less competition for my child to get into a scientific degree program or a job in the technology area?

I wouldn't have thought so... if this law and it's application were successful it would embolden law makers to come for science education at higher learning as well.