I'll also point out at this juncture that Rym is not a scientist. The vast majority of the scientific community doesn't fucking care about the question of God (at least not from the perspective of science), because we have more important things to worry about. It is, at best, an intellectual exercise in which we engage when we're not doing something that actually matters.
It's not that untestable things don't effectively exist - it's that we don't even care enough to consider it. The proper response in real science is apathy.
I'll also point out at this juncture that Rym is not a scientist. The vast majority of the scientific community doesn't fucking care about the question of God (at least not from the perspective of science), because we have more important things to worry about. It is, at best, an intellectual exercise in which we engage when we're not doing something that actually matters.
Very true. There are some legitimate scientists who are fairly devoutly religious (such as practicing Catholic and ID/Creationism bashing evolutionary biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller) but know very well that "God" doesn't belong in their scientific work.
It feels like you guys (Edit: Maybe just Rym?) are trying to strawman johndis up there a bit because I don't believe he's arguing what you seem to want to think he's arguing. From what I can tell, he's simply saying that many people operate on a "colloquial" leap-of-faith in science in their day to day lives. Or am I missing something?
From what I can tell, he's simply saying that many people operate on a "colloquial" leap-of-faith in science in their day to day lives. Or am I missing something?
Which is something that we need to correct by installing a sense of experimentality coupled with an understanding of how strong our current theories actually are. There's no reason for people to have to believe anything on faith alone.
The vast majority of the scientific community doesn't fucking care about the question of God (at least not from the perspective of science), because we have more important things to worry about. It is, at best, an intellectual exercise in which we engage when we're not doing something that actually matters.
It's not that untestable things don't effectively exist - it's that we don't even care enough to consider it. The proper response in real science is apathy.
Yah, that's what I'm saying. Like the field of actual science just straight up transcends that. When you get into the realm of doing things like "oh I'm totally gonna own these noob god lovers," you're getting into colloquial science.
I would say at the same time, tho, that science should also strive to logically increase its scope and what it really does consider. That's much less practical tho, and also already does happen. Actually I'm probably saying that cause I just heard this NASA dude on NPR talking about how the space program is really important to scientific education because it broadens the scope; it gives room for dreaming and curiosity and whatnot. He claims this gets more people involved in actual science stuff. He was kind of a blowhard, but I think I might agree in general??
Also a lot of what I'm saying is based on the fact that I think knowledge itself is a pretty silly part of social construct, and we should always shun simply learning some information over discovering or deconstructing some info. This means I'm more likely to think something anyone says is accepted or proven or known should be the first thing that's scrutinized, for mental fortitude!!
Which is something that we need to correct by installing a sense of experimentality coupled with an understanding of how strong our current theories actually are. There's no reason for people to have to believe anything on faith alone.
Yeah I think this is one of those times when two people actually agree but they're arguing anyway lol
At some point, you need to just accept certain fundamental axioms of knowledge otherwise you are going to be spending your whole time and effort into proofs or experiments which already have robustly shown a result. Science is an incremental process, not a reconstructive one where you have to personally lay the foundation.
Also, sounds like johndis has a chip on his shoulder.
From what I can tell, he's simply saying that many people operate on a "colloquial" leap-of-faith in science in their day to day lives. Or am I missing something?
Which is something that we need to correct by installing a sense of experimentality coupled with an understanding of how strong our current theories actually are. There's no reason for people to have to believe anything on faith alone.
OK, I will agree with your sentiment. Similarly, I think children should be taught elementary philosophy of logic before really getting into math, science, history, etc.
That said, eventually it does become rather impossible not to make some leap-of-faith pragmatically. And we should be able to discuss when and where that happens.
Also a lot of what I'm saying is based on the fact that I think knowledge itself is a pretty silly part of social construct, and we should always shun simply learning some information over discovering or deconstructing some info. This means I'm more likely to think something anyone says is accepted or proven or known should be the first thing that's scrutinized, for mental fortitude!!
Except that it's not practical for individuals to personally test every single thing, nor is it rational to repeatedly challenge extremely sound ideas with unsound, already tried, failed arguments over and over again.
Every single rational person in the world should accept the fundamental theory of evolution as "correct" for all intents and purposes. Teaching should stress how deeply challenged the theory already was. It's a prime example of how well "science" works in terms of discovering what is for all intents and purposes "truth." This acceptance comes with the understanding that the idea is both predictive and testable, and that untestable contention in the realm of science isn't useful to society or progress.
Science doesn't mean you understand every step of the chain of logic. It means someone does, and that the chain can be followed and refuted. Doubting core science and treating that doubt as somehow being legitimate inquiry is the problem.
I don't believe the educational model should be repeatedly testing accepted theories lol. I think a generalized focus of education should be discovery and deconstruction, and not regurgitation of information. I'm not proposing a specific curriculum of gravity tests here guys. I think our current model is "teach them what to know" and I'd like to see more "teach them how to know."
I also think the way science is presented colloquially is authoritarian.
Um, excuse me?
As TheWhaleShark said, it's impossible to explain every little nitty gritty piece of evolution to every single person, but there are easy experiments that demonstrate a few key mechanisms.
In fact, every time I hear a scientist debating, either against a politician or a nutcase (the two aren't mutually exclusive), I'm worried that the scientist is being too lenient in their language. A lot of times, I'll hear something like "to the best of our knowledge, x is happening," which is attacked by the anti-science person who says his/her opponent "isn't 100% sure." Lay people seem to be swayed by that argument, as well as other straw men that use the jargon of scientists against it (e.g. "only a theory").
It's a balancing act. If you go too far to either side of the "what to know"<->"how to know" spectrum, you are going to be ineffective in education. In order to actually do tests, you have to inform them on statistics, probabilities, and other mathematics. To test evolution, you need to explain DNA and cells. Furthermore, several simple topics of knowledge that are introduced early in education have extremely complex proofs and tests behind them beyond the comprehension of young minds. The best approach is a combination of the two, however an education professional could probably explain it better.
How about this? Give 1st graders some Aristotle, then make them derive the rest of science and mathematics over the course of their schooling. Make those kids work for their grades!
How about this? Give 1st graders some Aristotle, then make them derive the rest of science and mathematics over the course of their schooling. Make those kids work for their grades!
Each 1st grader is provided a copy of Euclid's elements. Have fun.
Also, sounds like johndis has a chip on his shoulder.
It runs in the family. :P
EDIT:
Um, excuse me?
I actually agree with that statement to an extent. By and large, non-scientists are really fucking bad at representing science to the general public, so it comes off as being unduly authoritarian.
The reason you think scientists are being too lenient in their language is because we actually understand the flaws and uncertainties that go into the debate at hand. The vast majority of people don't. When we give our conclusions, we're as certain as we can possibly be. We don't claim to be 100% certain about things because such a level of certainty is essentially impossible to achieve. But the general public has this notion that such certainty is possible.
So the problem isn't with the language that scientists use, because they're using exactly the language they intend to and should be using. The problem is that we're effectively speaking a completely different language, and we're expressing fundamentally different concepts than what the public understands.
I've yet to figure out how to fix the problem other than "everybody needs to start learning real science from an early age."
So yeah, give the 1st graders Euclid's elements.
And yes, we need to teach the process of critical thinking from a young age as well. But no matter what, we do need to teach a discrete body of information at the same time.
^ Yah it's not like knowledge is roundly worthless, I just think it's limiting the human brain when its literally the focus of the whole education system (learn shit to get a good SAT score!!!). Using your brain to store information is increasingly pointless in the first world, but our critical thinking potential is far from realized on a mass scale.
We also need to get beyond people trying to refute gravity.
Yeah, I propose testing this theory as an excercise for like.. 8 year olds. I don't see why a sophomore/junior in hs shouldn't be talking about, testing, or at least thinking about the most cutting edge science stuff thats going on. I think the brain is perfectly capable of this, I think we just need to breed critical thinking. I don't think the article in the OP is pro-critical thinking. I got chips, yall got beef w/ my chips.
So the problem isn't with the language that scientists use, because they're using exactly the language they intend to and should be using. The problem is that we're effectively speaking a completely different language, and we're expressing fundamentally different concepts than what the public understands.
Oh, yes. I should have phrased that better. I'm definitely not taking umbrage with the language scientists use, but I'm saddened at the fact that I, as a lay man, can so easily see my fellow lay men being hoodwinked by these straw men.
I was just looking up what "woo-woo" is... since I hadn't seen it before.
"When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs."
Uhm... there's a reason Algebra isn't generally taught until middle school. They aren't generally very good at abstract thought until around that time. It's not because they haven't been taught; it's because their brains need time to develop the capacity. It's a developmental thing. Now of course, this development timing varies from kid to kid, so your personal stories of how you were working polar coordinates at age 2 are not a valid counterargument.
As to science communication; get better at communicating concepts without using jargon. This isn't just a problem with science. It's a problem with every specialized field. I could explain wood structure to you with jargon or using common terms, but you will probably learn a lot more if I tell you White Oak is watertight because there are hard bubbles filling up the vessels in the wood than if I tell you it's because it has tyloses.
I think children should have a good base in logic from an early age. If you can teach a child to think logically, but also foster creativity, you have an excellent grounding for a kid who will be able to tackle whatever he or she wants to do with minimal fuss. I don't necessarily mean computational logic, or advanced reasoning, just little simple things. Teach them evidence-based learning, stealthily sneak in lessons about Occam's Razor and tautologies in really basic ways that kids can grasp.
Maybe I'll write a children's book called "Occam Bear Has No Hair." It'll be about a bear who wonders where all his fur has gone, and talks to a little gnome about it. The gnome dismisses most of his answers as too complex, and tells him in various ways that the simplest answer is most likely correct. "No elephants could steal your hair, I've seen no elephants anywhere. If no elephants are here nor there, then your answer must be simpler, Occam Bear." At the end, Occam realizes he shaved his hair, and realizes the truth: "Easy things happen easier than harder things do, and that goes for everything, and my hair, too!"
Uhm... there's a reason Algebra isn't generally taught until middle school.
I can't tell what this was directed at, but if it was at my comment about elementary philosophy of logic education... for a very long time that was actually one of the first subjects taught to elementary-age students for most of history. I'm not talking mathematical logic notation, but stuff like:
All cats are mammals. Tiger is a cat. Tiger is a mammal.
Edit: I guess I mean for most of post-Aristotle western education. Or something like that. But basically for a long long time.
Maybe I'll write a children's book called "Occam Bear Has No Hair." It'll be about a bear who wonders where all his fur has gone, and talks to a little gnome about it. The gnome dismisses most of his answers as too complex, and tells him in various ways that the simplest answer is most likely correct. "No elephants could steal your hair, I've seen no elephants anywhere. If no elephants are here nor there, then your answer must be simpler, Occam Bear." At the end, Occam realizes he shaved his hair, and realizes the truth: "Easy things happen easier than harder things do, and that goes for everything, and my hair, too!"
Maybe I'll write a children's book called "Occam Bear Has No Hair." It'll be about a bear who wonders where all his fur has gone, and talks to a little gnome about it. The gnome dismisses most of his answers as too complex, and tells him in various ways that the simplest answer is most likely correct. "No elephants could steal your hair, I've seen no elephants anywhere. If no elephants are here nor there, then your answer must be simpler, Occam Bear." At the end, Occam realizes he shaved his hair, and realizes the truth: "Easy things happen easier than harder things do, and that goes for everything, and my hair, too!"
Comments
It's not that untestable things don't effectively exist - it's that we don't even care enough to consider it. The proper response in real science is apathy.
I would say at the same time, tho, that science should also strive to logically increase its scope and what it really does consider. That's much less practical tho, and also already does happen. Actually I'm probably saying that cause I just heard this NASA dude on NPR talking about how the space program is really important to scientific education because it broadens the scope; it gives room for dreaming and curiosity and whatnot. He claims this gets more people involved in actual science stuff. He was kind of a blowhard, but I think I might agree in general??
Also a lot of what I'm saying is based on the fact that I think knowledge itself is a pretty silly part of social construct, and we should always shun simply learning some information over discovering or deconstructing some info. This means I'm more likely to think something anyone says is accepted or proven or known should be the first thing that's scrutinized, for mental fortitude!!
Also, sounds like johndis has a chip on his shoulder.
That said, eventually it does become rather impossible not to make some leap-of-faith pragmatically. And we should be able to discuss when and where that happens.
Every single rational person in the world should accept the fundamental theory of evolution as "correct" for all intents and purposes. Teaching should stress how deeply challenged the theory already was. It's a prime example of how well "science" works in terms of discovering what is for all intents and purposes "truth." This acceptance comes with the understanding that the idea is both predictive and testable, and that untestable contention in the realm of science isn't useful to society or progress.
Science doesn't mean you understand every step of the chain of logic. It means someone does, and that the chain can be followed and refuted. Doubting core science and treating that doubt as somehow being legitimate inquiry is the problem.
As TheWhaleShark said, it's impossible to explain every little nitty gritty piece of evolution to every single person, but there are easy experiments that demonstrate a few key mechanisms.
In fact, every time I hear a scientist debating, either against a politician or a nutcase (the two aren't mutually exclusive), I'm worried that the scientist is being too lenient in their language. A lot of times, I'll hear something like "to the best of our knowledge, x is happening," which is attacked by the anti-science person who says his/her opponent "isn't 100% sure." Lay people seem to be swayed by that argument, as well as other straw men that use the jargon of scientists against it (e.g. "only a theory").
We definitely need more science education at a younger age, yes. We also need to get beyond people trying to refute gravity. There's an old UNIX koan that states: There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.
EDIT: Andrew, you have a way with words. That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking, but put so much more clearly and succinctly.
EDIT: I actually agree with that statement to an extent. By and large, non-scientists are really fucking bad at representing science to the general public, so it comes off as being unduly authoritarian.
The reason you think scientists are being too lenient in their language is because we actually understand the flaws and uncertainties that go into the debate at hand. The vast majority of people don't. When we give our conclusions, we're as certain as we can possibly be. We don't claim to be 100% certain about things because such a level of certainty is essentially impossible to achieve. But the general public has this notion that such certainty is possible.
So the problem isn't with the language that scientists use, because they're using exactly the language they intend to and should be using. The problem is that we're effectively speaking a completely different language, and we're expressing fundamentally different concepts than what the public understands.
I've yet to figure out how to fix the problem other than "everybody needs to start learning real science from an early age."
So yeah, give the 1st graders Euclid's elements.
And yes, we need to teach the process of critical thinking from a young age as well. But no matter what, we do need to teach a discrete body of information at the same time.
I'm pretty sure this is why good scientists eventually give up. You muggles are too much effort.
"When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs."
Also, from another link on the previous page, I think this seems oddly relevant as a comparison.
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/zealot.html
As to science communication; get better at communicating concepts without using jargon. This isn't just a problem with science. It's a problem with every specialized field. I could explain wood structure to you with jargon or using common terms, but you will probably learn a lot more if I tell you White Oak is watertight because there are hard bubbles filling up the vessels in the wood than if I tell you it's because it has tyloses.
Maybe I'll write a children's book called "Occam Bear Has No Hair." It'll be about a bear who wonders where all his fur has gone, and talks to a little gnome about it. The gnome dismisses most of his answers as too complex, and tells him in various ways that the simplest answer is most likely correct. "No elephants could steal your hair, I've seen no elephants anywhere. If no elephants are here nor there, then your answer must be simpler, Occam Bear." At the end, Occam realizes he shaved his hair, and realizes the truth: "Easy things happen easier than harder things do, and that goes for everything, and my hair, too!"
All cats are mammals.
Tiger is a cat.
Tiger is a mammal.
Edit: I guess I mean for most of post-Aristotle western education. Or something like that. But basically for a long long time.