Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Arikay said:Not what I said.
Discussing why certain things aren't science does belong in science class. It should be one of the first topics taught. It is the things that aren't science that shouldn't be allowed in science class.
For example,
Last tuesdayism. The class can talk about why last tuesdayism isn't science in their opening to what science is. But when the age of the earth comes around, Last tuesdayism should not be taught, as it is not a scientific alternative.
nerdypants said:I didn't say we arnt equal, I am quite fermiliar with the fact that i am just as much a sinner as they, what I'm saying is that God doesn't want his name on our actions... sure he'll forgive us if we go to him.. but we arnt.. are we.. we're rejecting him instead.
Yes, it should. Science classes should include a brief survey of such things as mesmerism, creationism, phrenology, etc., and information as to why they're not science. Then the class could go on to actually study science. This would be very useful in helping people tell pseudoscience from science.Shane Roach said:An honest discussion of the issues would involve all aspects.
Electric Sceptic said:Yes, it should. Science classes should include a brief survey of such things as mesmerism, creationism, phrenology, etc., and information as to why they're not science. Then the class could go on to actually study science. This would be very useful in helping people tell pseudoscience from science.
I wasn't. Telling science from pseudoscience is an important skill, particularly nowadays when there are so many pseudosciences around. Education them about pseudosciences such as phrenology, mesmerism and creationism, and why they're not sciences, would be very valuable.Shane Roach said:Phrenology might be relevant. I wouldn't think mesmerism would be unless you know something about it I don't. I'm trying hard not to assume you were being sarcastic.
And that should be done in a philosophy class, not a science class. Science class is about teaching science, not the philosophy of knowledge.Shane Roach said:Most importantly though, there needs to be a discussion of the philosophy of knowledge, including its mathematical, material, and cognative roots. I don't see any particular reason to exclude religion from this discussion.
Electric Sceptic said:I wasn't. Telling science from pseudoscience is an important skill, particularly nowadays when there are so many pseudosciences around. Education them about pseudosciences such as phrenology, mesmerism and creationism, and why they're not sciences, would be very valuable.
And that should be done in a philosophy class, not a science class. Science class is about teaching science, not the philosophy of knowledge.
EVERYTHING is the product of philosophies of how things are known. By your logic, we shouldn't teach anything to anyone until they've passed a course in philosophy, dealing with the philosophy of knowledge. That's plainly ridiculous. Apart from anything else, the philosophy of knowledge is a difficult subject. There is a great deal children can learn long before they are capable of understanding the philosophy of knowledge.Shane Roach said:Science is a product of the philosopies of how things are known, and to discuss science without discussing underlying assumptions is to discuss something in ignorance.
Sorry, but this is nonsensical. A fundamental understanding of what science is can easily be taught without going into the philosophy of knowledge. I can give it to you in one sentence - science is the study of the natural world around us. There. That wasn't hard. Of course, more information can be given, depending on the intelligence/age of the students, such as why science limits itself to the natural and (as previously discussed) why various pseudosciences aren't science.Shane Roach said:This is the point at which the atheist's argument is most clearly shown to be about politics and not about education. The very idea that something should be taught without a fundamental understanding of what it is is absurd.
Electric Sceptic said:EVERYTHING is the product of philosophies of how things are known. By your logic, we shouldn't teach anything to anyone until they've passed a course in philosophy, dealing with the philosophy of knowledge. That's plainly ridiculous. Apart from anything else, the philosophy of knowledge is a difficult subject. There is a great deal children can learn long before they are capable of understanding the philosophy of knowledge.
Sorry, but this is nonsensical. A fundamental understanding of what science is can easily be taught without going into the philosophy of knowledge. I can give it to you in one sentence - science is the study of the natural world around us. There. That wasn't hard. Of course, more information can be given, depending on the intelligence/age of the students, such as why science limits itself to the natural and (as previously discussed) why various pseudosciences aren't science.
It SHOULD be taught, as the first introduction to science, which I doubt any atheist would disagree with.
So...nice try to slur atheism, but failed. Give it another go.
It's "jibberish" to teach people about pseudoscience?Shane Roach said:It should be taught at any point where it is relavent, and it does not take long as you so aptly pointed out. I would add it should probably be taught without all the jibberish about pseudoscience.
Electric Sceptic said:It's "jibberish" to teach people about pseudoscience?
Let me guess...you want to teach children that which conforms to YOUR religious faith, right? lol...rather predictable.Shane Roach said:I believe that in the curriculum itself better terminology could be found than I have seen posted by you here, yes.
rev_atheist said:So how would they teach creation in schools without it relating to any one god, which pertains to religion, while the schools are goverment... and religion is SUPPOSED to be separated from state? You can't say "there is also a theory that god created the earth and everything in it roughly 6 thousand years ago, turn in your Bibles to the book of Genesis..." It just wouldn't work, it isn't science to me... it's religion, and religion is separated from state in the Constitution or whatever, something like that (I tend to sleep in Am. Gov't... shh don't tell my parents).
Ta.
And, again, you're fighting a strawman, because science does NOT say that the mechanistic is the only legitimate way to look at the world.Shane Roach said:I tend to believe that the concept can be put across with a brief discussion of things like free will, consciousness, and the limitations of science without getting into anything deeply. Here I am afraid I betray any hard core creationists, but as I have said here and there, I am not a hard core creationist. My concern is the misrepresentation of the mechanistic as the only legitimate way to look at the world and that children are not being given the information they need to make an informed decision of their own about such matters.
Shane Roach said:That's precisely the point. You continually talk about the limitations of science, but when it comes to actually talking openly about them in the context if this issue you insist that "it's not science."
Arikay said:Thats because certain things are outside the limits of science, thus they aren't science.
He doesn't need me to do so. He knows as well as I do what is science and what is not. He (I'm sure) has no problem at all in explaining why science does not deal with matters (literally) immaterial, nor has anything he's posted that I've been able to find indicated differently.Shane Roach said:This is the very thread, Sceptic. Perhaps you can convince Arikay that mentioning consciousness, will and religion in the context of explaining the limitations of science regarding this issue is acceptable in a science class.
Arikay said:Not what I said.
Discussing why certain things aren't science does belong in science class. It should be one of the first topics taught. It is the things that aren't science that shouldn't be allowed in science class.
For example,
Last tuesdayism. The class can talk about why last tuesdayism isn't science in their opening to what science is. But when the age of the earth comes around, Last tuesdayism should not be taught, as it is not a scientific alternative.
Well we do have many different means of measure to determine age. This is what science uses for calculating age. This can be repeated.Shane Roach said:This appears to be a roundabout way of saying that when the age of the earth is discussed, that people should not discuss or refresh the memory of students regarding why these things do not overlap with religion or any ideas that might have to do with intervening changes in the past that we would have no way of knowing about. It represents precisely the sort of denial I am concerned with.
joebudda said:Well we do have many different means of measure to determine age. This is what science uses for calculating age. This can be repeated.
Religion tends to be a claim with no means of measure or anyway to verify. This goes for all creation beliefs in every religion that believes in their own form of creation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?