Note from Kansas

Bravo!
"not lawyers and glorified PR firms masquerading as think tanks."

That is what I have felt all along - the fact that we glorify the D.I. by referring to it as a "think tank" has been a matter of consternation to me for a long time. In fact it is the absolute opposite of a think tank with the notable exception that members spare no effort in thinking up ways to obfuscate, spin, and otherwise distort. The continued absence of the long-promised results of the DI's "thinking" supports a conclusion that, although those people appear to be tanked, real thinking is a precious rare commodity.

Tom

Reasonable, pro-science Kansans will be looking for candidates who understand that science curricula should be determined by scientists and educators...

"It's only halftime."

Dear FL: It's true mainstream scientists and educators boycotted the right-wing school board's kangaroo court in May 2005.

You forgot to mention, however, that dozens of scientists and educators did participate in four well-attended statewide hearings just a few months earlier in Feb. 2005.

The success of the pro-science speakers at those hearing and the clearly stated religious motivations of those speaking for the ID-inspired standards, written by John Calvert of the ID Network, forced the board to short circuit the curriculum development process and restrict public testimony on the standards to a group of "experts" supplied by the Discovery Institute.

The issues were debated again -- this time not in the board's rigged hearings whose outcome was never in doubt -- during the Kansas elections. The ID forces stumped the state, paid for inserts in local papers, bought radio ads on Christian stations, and set up web sites.

In the end, the voters heard and responded to the message sent by moderate pro-science candidates such as Sally Cauble and Jana Shaver. Scientists and educators played a key role in the election, just as they did in the public hearings.

It may be, as you say, halftime, but to carry the battle into the second half, the ID faithful will have to file a lawsuit. That not-so-intelligently designed will not take on scientists, educators, or KCFS, but the clearly expressed intent of the voters to restore real science to the science standards.

That suit -- if filed -- will fail because the ID-inspired standards can't be successfully separated from the clearly sectarian religious motivations of its backers.

Like everything else about intelligent design, the threat to sue is empty.

FL: "...like the scientists and educators who actually showed up, testified up, and underwent the public cross-examination at the KBOE 2005 Science Standard hearings, natch!"

Were these the ones who
(a) admitted they hadn't read through the standards they were condemning?
(b) - except for one - wouldn't give an accurate number for the age of the earth?
(c) denied common ancestry?
(d) weren't evolutionary biologists by any stretch of qualification?

Apparently FL is one of the Babble thumpers who would like Kansas to return to the status of international laughing stock while keeping its kids ignorant of modern science. Putz.

FL, why didn't you just say:

"Curses! Foiled again!"

and move on?

sooo pathetic.

Re "and whether the state can suppress information critical of evolution"

Information? First, ya gotta produce that information before anybody could actually suppress it.

(a) admitted they hadn't read through the standards they were condemning?

(b) - except for one - wouldn't give an accurate number for the age of the earth?

c) denied common ancestry?

(d) weren't evolutionary biologists by any stretch of qualification?

shake your fist harder, FL.

"It's only halftime."

FL,

I have a simple question. Who backed out of testifying in a real legal case? You know, where there is a impartial judge and actual rules of evidence. Was it it IDiots or the Evilutionist.

Any self respecting chemist should know the age of the earth. Its kind of like asking an expert on China were North America is on a map. Granted, its outside their specific expertise, but it such basic knowledge that one would have to know it. The experts couldn't give a correct answer meant that they A) ate too many paint chips when a child. B) are idiot savants. or C) are willfully ignorant any evidence and/or theory that challenges their view of the universe. I would rather have people from choice A than from choice C, be involved with setting the science standards.

As for your evolutionary biologist, Ralph Seelke, when your star witness comes from the University of Wisconsin-Superior you really are in trouble. I'm from Wisconsin. UW-Superior isn't in the upper crust of science academia, even for the state. It falls well below UW-Steven's Point (Smoke a joint, go to Point) and even below UW-Stout (When in Doubt, go to Stout.) I know more people who wanted to go to Platteville, rather than Superior, and who the hell would want to go to Platteville?

Just remember IDist could leave the safety of the Internet, go into a lab and actually try to get results. It is usually better to do some science, before trying to get the science you haven't done into class rooms.

FL:"Ms. Shepard-Adams, [sic] it honestly doesn't look like you're willing to give sufficient credit to those genuine scientists and educators for the clear and large amount of expert testimony for which your evolution attorney, as well as the rest of the gang, had NOTHING by way of refutation at all."

Sorry, FL. It's up to the challengers - the ID folks - to come up with the evidence to change the status quo through the scientific venues.

Like it or not, that's the way science works. All the ID dog-n-pony shows won't change that fact.

As a science teacher, I'm not happy with your vicarious interference in my classroom. I resent your accusation of cowardice on my part because I didn't encourage scientists to participate in the mockery of science that were the hearings in May 2005. I'm not hiding behind some two- or three-letter pseudonym. My name has been attached to letters to the editor, to media interviews, and to the hateful emails sent my way.

The scientists who blazed the trails of knowledge weren't cowards, either. They had the cajones to publish their data and see their conclusions supported or refuted. They don't hide at the Biologic Institute and refuse to discuss their work. They're out there, on the front lines, gathering the evidence to support their contentions.

Funny how those who testified at the ID hearings haven't done that. They're the ones who've led the boycott against science. They refuse to submit their work to peer review. They conduct their business through press release and politics instead of peer review and rigor.

And you accuse me of cowardice?

Also, wouldn't the acceptance or rejection of common ancestry be Totally Irrelevant to expert witnesses like chemist Dr. Charles Thaxton whose specialty is Origin of Life and who testified SPECIFICALLY concerning the KS Origin of Life Standards?

Is nobody bothered by the inherently anti-realist approach to science that is embodied in the science standard ?

I mean, I have no problem with this as such, but I think it is just going to confuse kids to embrace such a science standard without making it explicit. Bound to do more harm than good, given the general idea that science is synonymous with some sort of scientific realism and the "pursuit of truth" about the world.

Although let me guess, pretending an anti-realist philosophy of science is really a realist philosophy of science if being "pro-science" ?

Sorry for the cynicism.

So, sciphishow, since you brought it up -- please explain to us how one can empirically test a supernatural cause.

So, sciphishow, since you brought it up --- please explain to us how one can empirically test a supernatural cause

This was inevitable, given the outcome of last year's state board of education elections, but it's still nice to know that the newly elected board of education candidates followed through on their campaign promises. An interesting sidelight to this story comes from an email I received late last week. The email came from Rob Crowther of the Discovery Institute, home church of the "intelligent design movement" (yes, I'm on their mailing list; it's always good to know what the other side is doing). In the email, Crowther railed against the new Kansas science standards, but the interesting thing is that he railed specifically against the removal of an item about the abuse of science (the rise and fall of eugenics in the 20th century and the Tuskegee syphilis study were the main examples). The email encouraged me to send an email to the board of education protesting the new standards because they included this change. Interestingly, there was no mention at all in the email of the fact that almost all of the proposed changes are to the parts of the old standards dealing with evolution and "intelligent design." Hmm...it appears that deliberate prevarication is part and parcel of the Discovery Institute's modus operandi. Crowther is a master propagandist, and his work in this case would have made Goebbels proud...

FL said: If you're going to insist on ONLY evolutionary biologists testifying at public hearings in order to be considered qualifed to testify in such matters, are you prepared, right here and right now, to state your public rejection of the Dover testimony of Barbara Forrest, Robert Pennock, and others, seeing as they are clearly NOT evolutionary biologists?

Apples and oranges. The creationist critics of evolution should be biologists because they are criticizing biology

Thanks very much for the kind words. Normal life is not here yet though: I have a TV show tomorrow and a panel discussion Saturday night. Interest is high about what happened in Kansas and what it means.

FL is a regular on the KCFS discussion forum, by the way, and we have discussed the issues he is bringing up here interminably. Don't wear yourself out arguing with him.

And Allen MacNeill is exactly right on about the DI's post last week about eugenics et al in the old standards. Thanks, Allen

So Kansas is a big victory because it is a defeat for the "teach the strengths and weaknesses" tactic, but the IDists in Kansas are a bit bitter, so I imagine there is more to come.

Sci Fi Show said: What is a problem is when you want to claim some sort of broad scientific realism and then rule out lots of different possible means of explanation as out of bounds by fiat.

Could you give a few examples of such explanations, how exactly they are ruled "out of bounds by fiat", what they would explain, and the kinds of research they would spawn that current methods do not?

What I have a problem with, is that by defining science in such a way it ceases to be a search for the truth about how the world works, and instead becomes a search for predictive power and instrumental value. This is an anti-realist approach to science.

one man's pragmatism is another man's reality.

a search for predictive and explanatory power IS what science is all about. it's not some mystic search for truth; perhaps that's why most layfolk (and ALL creobots) seem to confuse it with religion so readily?

sounds like an awful lot of projection.

Who backed out of testifying in a real legal case?

It is usually better to do some science, before trying to get the science you haven't done into class rooms.

god you're funny.

I know people who have published hundreds of articles and won numerous awards for their work in 15 years.

it's been a lot longer than that for the idea of "intelligent design", yet there never has been any published research, or even a testable hypothesis put forward.

If it boiled down to a graduate level thesis, the graduate student IDist would have been tossed years ago for failure to produce.

but you just keep... shaking.. that.. fist... boy!

one man's pragmatism is another man's reality.

a search for predictive and explanatory power IS what science is all about. it's not some mystic search for truth;

Assume for the sake of argument that the YEC's are 100% right in their claims about the age of the earth and the universe. Again, just for the sake of argument. Any explanation that leads to that conclusion will inevitably involve the actions of a divine agent.

Look at Ptolemy's astronomy as a perfect example (in hindsight) of instrumentalism in practice. The theory of epicycles is actually usefully predictive and works nicely as such. But it doesn't reflect the way the universe is actually set out.

:Shrug:. Neither does Copernican astronomy for that matter. Newton's gravitation isn't it either. I suppose you could argue for the reality of a particular gauge of general-relativity, but that seems rather silly and scientifically vacuous.

Neither does Copernican astronomy for that matter. Newton's gravitation isn't it either. I suppose you could argue for the reality of a particular gauge of general-relativity, but that seems rather silly and scientifically vacuous.

Here is a good article on the standards change.

No it wouldn't. The God Theory does not win by default

What I have a problem with, is that by defining science in such a way it ceases to be a search for the truth about how the world works, and instead becomes a search for predictive power and instrumental value. This is an anti-realist approach to science.

On the contrary, it is as realist as it can get, for it recognizes the raw, sometimes unpleasant fact that we have found no reliable method of finding truth without predictive power

As I have noted in the long term, for being "right about how things are" science has about the poorest possible of track records.

TSPS said: Why don't you actually respond to the point I made instead of ignoring it and going on a tirade ? Am I too assume you concede the rest of it by your ignoring the actual point of what I wrote ?

Sci Phi, if you're not entirely a troll, you are confusing and impressing yourself with words. You have come up with 'anti-realist' which evidently impresses you but to your frustration does not have the same effect on others. Why doesn't it? Perhaps because you have not produced an evidence based reality which is opposed.

What is not supported by the preferred 'definition of science' is replacing 'don't know' with wishful thinking. This is pro-reality.

You don't really know anything about the philosophy of science do you ?

"What I have a problem with, is that by defining science in such a way it ceases to be a search for the truth about how the world works, and instead becomes a search for predictive power and instrumental value. This is an anti-realist approach to science."
____

Transcendental "truth" may be found in art and philosophy, but the truth science is after is that which can be discovered through studying the physical world. Scientists are looking for the best theory that fits the facts, not any theory at all that may be true, facts notwithstanding. For scientists to entertain the idea that creationists are "100% right" we would have to show persuasive facts and logic to support that conclusion. What you seem to be asking is for us to give Creationism a shot by ignoring all the evidence in support of evolution. Saying "yes, all these facts support your theory, and the arguments supporting Creationism have all been refuted, but Creationism COULD still be right, and you're not a REAL scientist if you dismiss it out of hand, absence of evidence notwithstanding" isn't very persuasive. That science doesn't consider magic and leprechauns as viable explanations of phenomenon doesn't mean that science is anti-realist; it only means that you're re-defining reality to extend beyond what science can study.

What you seem to be asking is for us to give Creationism a shot by ignoring all the evidence in support of evolution

I recognize that you are avoiding the arguments presented against you

But don't pretend if you think that, that science is telling us something about the way the world really is. You've already conceded that is not its purpose or direction.

you're confusing reality with perception.

stop it.

You have come up with 'anti-realist' which evidently impresses you but to your frustration does not have the same effect on others.

Perhaps because you have not produced an evidence based reality which is opposed.

What is not supported by the preferred 'definition of science' is replacing 'don't know' with wishful thinking. This is pro-reality.

Heck look at the history of the phlogiston theory of burning. It did actually work and was actually predictive. I suppose that in "one mans reality" (yours I guess based on what you have implied) that makes phlogiston real.

Sci Phi, if you're not entirely a troll, you are confusing and impressing yourself with words.

There is no search in science for any underlying "Truth", just attempts to build on what came previously in order to better it.

"But, if for the sake of argument life arose by such a mechanism that is outside the scope of "science" as defined in the standard, then no amount of hypothesizing or work can even in principle come to the correct conclusion because the correct conclusion is ruled out by definition."
----------------------------------

If for the sake of argument we all sprang into existence 23 minutes ago, and our memories of the past beyond that point were all illusions, then that hypothesis is beyond the scope of science, and no amount of.... etc. There is no practical limit to the number of theories you can posit that fall outside of science. Faeries, ESP, magic, leprechauns, elves, etc all fall oustide of science. You don't have to look to the evolution/creationism "debate" to find that. I can tell you that there is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Neptune that sends me telepathic messages, and that is no more or less supported by facts, no more or less subject to the processes of science, than creationism. It COULD be 100% correct. But if you have a blinkered, naturalistic worldview, you'd never arrive at "the truth", which shows that your way of looking at the world is incomplete. Or is that ridiculous? I'm voting for ridiculous.

I will ask again, and I'll keep asking until you answer: Give just one example of such an explanation, how exactly it is ruled "out of bounds by fiat", what it would explain, and the kinds of research it would spawn that current methods do not?

The standard as set out cannot deal with anything beyond entirely naturalistic causes. Not a problem.

But, if for the sake of argument life arose by such a mechanism that is outside the scope of "science" as defined in the standard, then no amount of hypothesizing or work can even in principle come to the correct conclusion because the correct conclusion is ruled out by definition.

If for the sake of argument we all sprang into existence 23 minutes ago, and our memories of the past beyond that point were all illusions, then that hypothesis is beyond the scope of science, and no amount of.... etc. There is no practical limit to the number of theories you can posit that fall outside of science.

your miserable work of battling against science.

The problem is when you take your pragmatic approach and then pretend to be scientific realists.

You really don't know anything about the philosophy of science, do you Jason?

Re "tendency to conflate the abiogeisis explanation for the origin of life and evolution,"

Not to mention that we know abiogenesis happened at least once, since life is here now and there was a time it wasn't - and once is all that's necessarily required for evolution. But a non-evolutionary origin of species requires an abiogenesis event for every independently originated species.

Henry

"The problem is when you want to claim that science does get at the way the world really is. Then you need to do more than simply exclude such approaches by fiat as the standard in question would."
-------------------

But the only way we have to ascertain "the way the world really is" is through evidence that can be perceived. Making up ideas and saying "this COULD be true" doesn't suffice in a world where we can look around, gather evidence, and find explanations that fit the evidence. All science does is look at the data we have available. They don't rule out explanations "by fiat" but based on whether or not there is evidence to support them. Religion, the other dominant approach, precludes all explanations that don't accord well with their holy book of choice. While science evaluates all explanations for which there is evidence (good or bad), religion is the worldview you're thinking of when you say that it excludes any explnation it doesn't like "by fiat".

Still haven't heard of a way to empirically test a hypothesis of supernatural cause...

The best sciphishow did was ask what a supernatural cause was. That's my point. It's totally unconstrained. Unconstrained hypothesis = no empirical expectations = no way for physical evidence to bear on whether or not it is true.

Although "The Sci Phi Show"'s and certainly Fl 's claims and posts are at least delusional false generalisations Sir_Toejam you're certainly wrong when writing
that in science there is no expectation of finality,of any underlying realizable "truth" and so on.

Scientific Method = rationally-mathematics + empirical data.

Popper's or others philosophies of science are about this method in contrast to other methods of thinking(ie rational but without emp.data,or non rational at all) and about how one can strictly define it ,if possible.
Expectation or not of truth (and so on) belongs to the realm of the understanding or of the (more literally than of the above use of the term) philosophy of science.You have (or anyway by your posts it seems to me) a scientific philosophy that belongs to positivism's camp.One can also have other understandings of science (ie platonic,realist,...)
but (this is what you don't seem to get) all of them accept and are based of and on the same -above mentioned- scientific method.(As an example see the Hawking-Penrose debate on fundamental theoretical physics)

"The Sci Phi Show" is using a naive eicotological antipositivistic
(naming it realist) approach and attack to the scientific method
when non positivism has simply nothing to do with that.

oops
scientific Method = rationallity-mathematics + empirical data

and not rationally-mathematics.anyway...

double oops. rationallity -> rationality. I obviously need to practice my english more.sorry...

By the way,(due to this blog debate also)I have recently realised that there is big fuzzyness and difference in the terminoly,taxonomy and classification of philosophical matters between transatlantics and cisatlantics.Or is it Anglophones and continentals? Or is it intranational and intraphone? (Or is it just me :-))
Perhaps other non USers and non Anglophones would like to help clarify things?
Philosophy is per se very fuzzy and one needs not complicate matters by using the same terms for different,often opposite, things.

ie I live in the city where Plato grew and mostly lived and here Platonism is a synomym for Idealism (and platonism opposite or at least different from realism) .And here platonism-idealism is a dualistic philosophy because there is the contast between the world of being (einai) -or world of ideas- and the (pseudo)world of becoming (gignesthai) -or world of senses-.
On the other hand I found in the anglophonic wikipedia that there are lemmata on Platonic Realism and Platonic Idealism ,one stating that the other terminoly is false.
As I understand , the platonic-realistic-monist (english?) terminology is so because in order to classify ,it focusses on plato's claims that THERE IS objective reality and that sensual reality ISN'T true (pseudo world) while our platonic-idealistic-dualistic (non-english?) terminology focusses on the claim of the DIFFERENCE between the two worlds and the DOMINENCE-TRUENESS of the world of ideas.

Sorry again for the errors...
terminoly -> terminology
contast - > contrast
intraphone -> intraphonic
synomym - > synonym

Doesn't anyone else see the irony that ultraconservatives want to liberalize science education to permit "alternative" nonsense from "lawyers and glorified PR firms masquerading as think tanks" that at best has not earned the right to be taught?

Okay, I know FL, but who's Jason?

platonic-realistic-monist (english?) terminology is so because in order to classify ,it focusses on plato's claims that THERE IS objective reality and that sensual reality ISN'T true (pseudo world)

I'm still trying to figure out how reality is 'anti-realist'.

(Is that the new buzzword?)

And again, your objections ignore a massive amount of virtually unchallenged expert witness testimony by these genuine scientists and scholars in 2005.

And what about the ID "Experts" who testified in the Dover trial? How did they fare?

That view wants to claim that science does tell us something about how the world actually works, rather than just providing a collection of useful predictive theories that are pragmatically useful.

That "collection of useful predictive theories that are pragmatically useful" does, in fact, tell us a lot about how the world actually works. You are merely expressing the same concept two different ways, and pretending they're two different things.

Assume for the sake of argument that the YEC's are 100% right in their claims about the age of the earth and the universe. Again, just for the sake of argument. Any explanation that leads to that conclusion will inevitably involve the actions of a divine agent.

Instead of asking us to assume this, why don't you tell us exactly how you would prove it? Have you actually found an explanation that leads to that conclusion without recourse to "goddidit" or "the Bible tells us so?"

Darth: "Jason" is Jason Rennie, a.k.a. The Sci Phi Show, a UD regular who follows the standard creationist tactic of soliciting audio interviews and "debates" between evolutionists and creationists, always implying that a) he's offering the evolutionists an indispensible opportunity to get their views out to the public; and b) if they don't take his offer, it means they're hiding something.

See the earlier PT post titled "Jason Rennie Interviews" for an example of his MO.

Ah, just found PZ's banned list. Know him. That you, Sci Phi?

Is it important to have such an example?

Yes, it is indeed important to provide examples of alleged behavior, in order to prove that the alleged behavior is indeed taking place. Without at least a few significant examples, the allegation is empty and without substance.

The complaint I have is one of confusing terminology and misleading students.

Coming from a creationist, that "complaint" is as hypocritical as it is laughable.

I suppose it might be useful to postulate that there exists an objective reality, within which everything is what it is and works the way it works. And I suppose we might consider science as the best method we have found for approximating that objective reality.

I don't think anyone is arguing that science always (or even ever) gets it absolutely and completely correct. The point being dodged here is that no method has ever been discovered for getting any closer to objective reality than science.

Now, since science is imperfect, I suppose we can call it anti-reality, so long as we understand that Making Stuff Up is even MORE anti-reality. There are surely great advantages to declaiming that one has "the real Truth" and thus establishing reality-by-fiat. You don't need to test, you don't risk being wrong, you don't have to make any predictions. Your target audience needs no further education - they're already skilled at this method. If these advantages are considered sufficient, then you go to your church and we'll go to ours.

Ah, cheers, Bee. Probably different Jason, then. I've not been reading all the threads, since I'm still trying to sort my ISP out. :(

I'm not battling against science. I want to see science properly taught to kids so that they actually understand the enterprise they are engaged in.

You have (or anyway by your posts it seems to me) a scientific philosophy that belongs to positivism's camp.One can also have other understandings of science (ie platonic,realist,...) but (this is what you don't seem to get) all of them accept and are based of and on the same -above mentioned- scientific method.

For all who are wondering who Jason is:

He's Jason Rennie http://thesciphishow.com/

Nice enough guy in that I think he's interested in conversing (as opposed to just talking). He's made some shoddy arguments in the past though, that he hasn't quite owned up to.

Err, what part of the new standards espouse "realism" (I assume meaning "scientific realism"), to the exclusion of other views?

Is any scientist completely realist? Is anyone purely anti-realist?

This reeks of "teach the controversy" here, where there is little controversy...not to mention false dichotomy, and misrepresentation.

Doesn't anyone else see the irony that ultraconservatives want to liberalize science education to permit "alternative" nonsense from "lawyers and glorified PR firms masquerading as think tanks" that at best has not earned the right to be taught?

That view wants to claim that science does tell us something about how the world actually works, rather than just providing a collection of useful predictive theories that are pragmatically useful. That "collection of useful predictive theories that are pragmatically useful" does, in fact, tell us a lot about how the world actually works. You are merely expressing the same concept two different ways, and pretending they're two different things.

Assume for the sake of argument that the YEC's are 100% right in their claims about the age of the earth and the universe. Again, just for the sake of argument. Any explanation that leads to that conclusion will inevitably involve the actions of a divine agent.

[Bee's response to the above quote] Instead of asking us to assume this, why don't you tell us exactly how you would prove it? Have you actually found an explanation that leads to that conclusion without recourse to "goddidit" or "the Bible tells us so?"

... He asked whether the state can endorse an idea that nature can be solely explained by material causes and whether the state can suppress information critical of evolution ...

Actually, it's a simple matter to respond to this one.

The state has the responsibility to endorse teaching accurate accounts of the scientific method in public school science classrooms.

The state has the responsibility to suppress efforts to promote a specific religious belief in public school science classrooms.

Well, yes, but then "liberals" and scientists are not immune from falling into placid inertia and satisfaction with incomplete but reasonable explanations in the face of alternative hypotheses. Hence even the fact that no, or virtually no, IDist has ever supported a non-politicized alternative theory in science that has proven to have merit does not automatically exclude their insistence that science be open to non-standard concepts.

— Glen Davidson

What is a problem is when you want to claim some sort of broad scientific realism and then rule out lots of different possible means of explanation as out of bounds by fiat.

Give just one example of such an explanation, how exactly it is ruled "out of bounds by fiat", what it would explain, and the kinds of research it would spawn that current methods do not?

Is it important to have such an example? The complaint I have is one of confusing terminology and misleading students. Your demand is a red herring.

Okay, science fiction, I'll bite:

What, exactly, do you mean by "anti-realist"? What is the realism, reality, realistic-ness, whatever, that the people you oppose are "anti"???

Can you answer the question clearly and succinctly, without just blubbering that scientists are -- or might be -- missing "something"?

Just askin'.

PZ's banned list is a hoot.

Reminds me of Nixon's "enemies" list.

Frank J --- They are not ultraconservatives even if they call themselves that. Strictly speaking, they are not even reactionaries in that they continue to use modern conveniences.

Ultraconfused might be a good label?

That view wants to claim that science does tell us something about how the world actually works, rather than just providing a collection of useful predictive theories that are pragmatically useful.

So asking you to provide a single example of what you asserted there are lots of, and indeed what is crucial to your argument, is a red herring now is it? And you presume to lecture others on their understanding of the philosophy of science? Priceless!

Is this related to "pathetic level of detail"?

The problem is when you want to claim that science does get at the way the world really is. Then you need to do more than simply exclude such approaches by fiat as the standard in question would.

All I want to see is good science education, rather than seeing science corrupted and used as some sort of ideological cudgel.

Hi Katarina
the example of platonism that I used when I was speaking of terminology and the questions asked were not concerning platonic-scientific relations but concerning ... what I said, difference of terminology,classification and taxonomy of philosophical theories and matters between the two sides of the atlantic, or between english speaking and non English speaking people,or ...
that is the difference in emphasis or focus that is given on different aspects of a certain philosophy between different groops in order to name and categorise it.
I didn't focus on different interpretations per se although one may suppose that there are.
Read more carefully the relevant post and you'll see. :-)

anyway more modern "versions" (my own favourite is what I call scientific platonism) of platonism
-caution! not neoplatonism,unfortunately this beautiful word,at least to my greek ears beautiful, is an amalgam of platonic philosophy,of some other philosophies and of some religions,an amalgam that formed during the time from post hellenistic ages to middle ages or even later.ie christianity according to some views is a neoplatonic creation-
are not about universals -the english translations of plato's words sound very antiaesthetical to my subjective ears-
,they are more about mathematics as the language of the cosmos or as the meaning of the cosmos or as the cosmos per se theistically or atheistically)

Hi Glen

according to modern platonic-oriented scientific thinkers there is an avenue to truth.I don't know if you have heard of it....
It's called Mathematics. :)
It's not an unobstructed avenue but they don't care.

anyway, the philosophical ideas one has concerning the fundamental natural laws,that's physics by the way, can effect,help,clarify or direct thought on -at least-fundamental issues.although from time to time in a negative manner :-)
as an example as a guide to choose between thinking (and researching) in aristotelian-binary logic or fuzzy logic,choosing between macrocosmic rules or microcosmic rules as fundamental,as aesthetical rule between theories,....

"theories of everything" can't really say what energy really is.
true,
but as I recall, a theory of everything isn't here yet,
as it's still a goal,at least for some.

auf wiederhoeren

All I want to see is science education, rather than seeing science corrupted and used as some sort of ideological cudgel.

A lot of Kansans agree with that very sentiment. They're not looking to read Bible verses in biology class.

A lot of Kansans agree with that very sentiment. They're not looking to read Bible verses in biology class. But they do want something other than the usual uncritical canned textbook's spoonfeeding of Darwinism in the biology class. They want more critical thinking skills stuck in there; they want the problems and weaknesses of evolution NOT glossed over; they want to make sure that the religion of materialism/naturalism is no more preached any more than Bible verses in the public school biology classroom.

Ken Ham, AiG---U.S. president, observed: "It's sad to see the way the NCSE and the secular media have continually misrepresented what happened in Kansas. Evolution didn't have to be 'restored' or returned---it was never taken out of the standards to begin with." Ham added: "It seems that all you have to do nowadays is to suggest to students that they can question evolution, and the resulting uproar by evolutionists and the secular media is incredible." It's a shame that the young people of Kansas will now receive a one-sided indoctrination program of evolution teaching in their science classes. They are being denied the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not evolution is true or false.

So, FL and colleagues only want students to be taught critical thinking?? If there were an ounce of truth in that sentiment, then why restrict the critical thinking to evolution? The critical-thinking argument is a sham. As others have pointed out, what is coming from FL and colleagues is truly bluster and fist-shaking. The irony is that YECs and IDists are fighting their own caricature of the high school classroom. There is no evidence to support the notion that teachers use evolutionary biology to advance a materialist/humanist/atheist agenda. OK, back to lurking...

Katarina

rereading your post I just bumped up onto the aforementioned difference in terminology.
The definition of positivism that I know of ,is that according to it :

either (strong version) there is no real :) reality and we just think and live trying our best not to die :)
( official thanatoean definition :-))
or (weak version) if there is a reality our understanding of it is only a crude model and we have really no way of really knowing.

The weak version isn't really positivism but a blend of positivism ,realism and -literal- agnosticism.

What you mentioned is closer to the weak definition which as said not really positivism.

The irony is that YECs and IDists are fighting their own caricature of the high school classroom.

A lot of Kansans agree with that very sentiment. They're not looking to read Bible verses in biology class.

But they do want something other than the usual uncritical canned textbook's spoonfeeding of Darwinism in the biology class.

They want more critical thinking skills stuck in there; they want the problems and weaknesses of evolution NOT glossed over; they want to make sure that the religion of materialism/naturalism is no more preached any more than Bible verses in the public school biology classroom.

FL, FL....

With every post, you keep on demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And you're just regurgitating anti-evolutionist pap.

How do you critically think about evolution without knowing the basics? How do you do it without understanding scientific methodology? And you CLEARLY don't understand scientific methodology if you think you have to teach weaknesses in the reigning paradigm at the high school level.

And...just how do you do non-naturalistic science?

FL, how many times have you've been asked this question and you've totally ignored it?

So, FL and colleagues only want students to be taught critical thinking??

But clearly not to THEIR ideas.

FL wants something more than uncritical canned Darwinism? I totally agree. Kansas schoolchildren should be taught that:
Darwin didn't realize inheritance was carried by genes. He certainly didn't know genes were made of DNA.
In fact, he thought cells were full of an amorphous goo called protoplasm, and never dreamed that large molecules like protein and DNA had regular structures.
Darwin didn't realize how ancient the earth really was, and didn't know about atomic energy, so he had no idea about the tests used to measure the age of the earth and its fossils.
Darwin thought the continents had always been in their present positions, making the positions of ancient fossils confusing, to say the least.
Speaking of fossils, Darwin never heard of australopithecines, homo habilis, or any of the other transition fossils between apes and humans.
Schoolchildren, in Kansas and elsewhere, should know that evolutionary biology is science because it has been more and more strongly supported as new facts come to light, and that Darwinism is not a religion, because when Darwin is wrong, scientists are willing to say he's wrong and move on.

FL said: But they do want something other than the usual uncritical canned textbook's spoonfeeding of Darwinism in the biology class. They want more critical thinking skills stuck in there; they want the problems and weaknesses of evolution NOT glossed over;

But they do want something other than the usual uncritical canned textbook's spoonfeeding of Darwinism in the biology class. They want more critical thinking skills stuck in there; they want the problems and weaknesses of evolution NOT glossed over; they want to make sure that the religion of materialism/naturalism is no more preached any more than Bible verses in the public school biology classroom.

Thanatos,

If you look at the wikipedia definition and scroll down to "Modern Positivism" that is what I meant. Its "features" are listed there and if you look at the second part of number one, ".. a linguistic or numerical set of statements," I guess that's where the use of mathematics would come in. I'm not sure why Glen seems to think Positivism is philosophically dead. Is it because reality is so subjectively interpreted by us, even collectively, or because reality's meaning can't be separated from our perception? I think science is a way of at least getting to bits and pieces of reality, if not some "ultimate truth," (and what does that mean, anyway?) reality being, maybe, confirmation of a set of perceptions about how objects interact with one another in processes.

I do not even qualify as an amateur philosopher, but I do enjoy thinking about these things. Since you and Glen seem to know much more than I, I'm hoping at least one of you will teach me something.

Katarina

you're seeming to be doing quite well by yourself.

philosophy = philosophia = philos (friend,lover) + sophia (wisdom,true knowledge)

By definition philosophy can't really be taught.Except perhaps only specific disciplines of it,or history of it.
Keep posing yourself questions about everything as you're seeming to be doing,keep trying to answer as you're seeming to be doing and that's it.
Others can only point you, to already posen questions,already stated answers.
That's good since one has not infinite time.That's bad because there is no use of the imagination.
That's not bad per se but also not good per se.
The voyage,the return to the beloved Ithaca has a virtue of itself.

at your service
ciao

Realism and antirealism are best understood as positions about the goal of science. IMO, if one realizes that the very idea of error presupposes some degree of realism, the debate is over.

Thanatos: Idealism sensu Plato is an ontological view, not an epistemological one, which is what realism (or antirealism) is. Plato was very much a realist; he felt you most certainly could have knowledge of the way the world (or at least the Forms) is/are.

Katarina: But science is not positivist in the correct sense of the world. Consider the case of molecular shape. No chemist I know of will deny that molecules have shape, despite this being a transphenomenal (and hence, non-positivist) hypothesis.

IMO, if one realizes that the very idea of error presupposes some degree of realism, the debate is over.

Thanatos: Why return to Ithaca? Not everyone has one, you know

according to modern platonic-oriented scientific thinkers there is an avenue to truth.I don't know if you have heard of it.... It's called Mathematics. :) It's not an unobstructed avenue but they don't care.

Dear dear Glen

I started visiting this site some time ago interested in the american religion vs science-evolution wars having -I admit-in my mind the American=Idiot stereotype.
The blog is wonderful,so
I started to think then ,following this and relevant blogs that there may be hope for the transatlantic barbarians.
Unfortunately your kind of thinking although evidently not religion-wise dogmatism,is a dogmatism,and is unfortunately refueling my stereotypism(sic).
I can't really answer when you're failing to see that your argumentation is a philosophy,is a point of view.You fail to see all the metaproblems.You fail to see that I'm not saying that my view is correct and yours wrong.(which is my view by the way?)
I just mentioned ,in hummoristical manner by the way,read between the lines MORE (more (vocativus-kletike) by the way not moron,please when naming me in greek names ,use my language correctly, that we're are talking about very fuzzy things and one should have in mind the complexity of them.

I apologise to any bystander for the harsh words I use,but unfortunately it comes to this:
for any non USAer talking to USAers usually-statistically is the same whatever the USAer may be,a fanatic christian YEC-OEC,a
kill_all_the arabs_they_are_all_terrorists_peaceloving jew
,an IDiot,a self centered overspecialised scientist in a desperate need of sphaerical education.

Charein!

Katarina

try reading Ithaca in a more metaphorical way

Bises

Cher Monsuir Thanatos,

Literally, not everyone's home is a place from which a certain philosophy springs, let alone a place from which all philosophy springs. I've met few people who are as proud of their home as Greeks, and I'm not saying it's without good reason.

Metaphorically, not everyone starts out committed to a certain ideal, or expectations of the end of the journey. (Read between the lines: perhaps your philosophical leanings are just a little biased, as I doubt you would deny.)

Also, home doesn't always stay the same: when Odysseus returned home to Ithaca, did he not have new enemies to slay before he could call it home again?

Je vous adresse mon très amical souvenir

Idealism sensu Plato is an ontological view, not an epistemological one

— Keith Douglas

But science is not positivist in the correct sense of the world. Consider the case of molecular shape. No chemist I know of will deny that molecules have shape, despite this being a transphenomenal (and hence, non-positivist) hypothesis.

Realism and antirealism are best understood as positions about the goal of science

IMO, if one realizes that the very idea of error presupposes some degree of realism, the debate is over.

Dear Katarina

you have clearly misunderstood me.

Again,try reading Ithaca metaphorically.

a hint :) in a platonic view, where Ithaca read True (or whatever).

I was obviously thinking in neohellenic poetical-philosophical context and you didn't get it.
Guilty. Homer is famous globally, C.P.Cabaphes (or kavafis,kavaphis,...) obviously isn't.
try Ithaca by C.P.Cabaphes

anyway,sorry for the stereotypical outburst but glen was not the paradigm of politeness and I really don't understand why.

Chaire!

Oh, you meant this. I get it now.

Yes :)

Once you try to be austere(and that's what one MUST be),to define things strictly then you crash onto the wall of selfreference.

"an ultimate one" - a fundamental one.

quantum mechanics and entropy puts limits on the layers of effective theories before an ultimate one

Unfortunately your kind of thinking although evidently not religion-wise dogmatism,is a dogmatism,and is unfortunately refueling my stereotypism(sic).

I can't really answer when you're failing to see that your argumentation is a philosophy,is a point of view.You fail to see all the metaproblems.

You fail to see that I'm not saying that my view is correct and yours wrong.(which is my view by the way?)

I just mentioned ,in hummoristical manner by the way,read between the lines MORE (more (vocativus-kletike) by the way not moron,please when naming me in greek names ,use my language correctly, that we're are talking about very fuzzy things and one should have in mind the complexity of them.

I apologise to any bystander for the harsh words I use,but unfortunately it comes to this:

for any non USAer talking to USAers usually-statistically is the same whatever the USAer may be,a fanatic christian YEC-OEC,a kill_all_the arabs_they_are_all_terrorists_peaceloving jew

,an IDiot,a self centered overspecialised scientist in a desperate need of sphaerical education.

Glen
I just give up.
Obviously you're the speaking voice of what all scientists have in mind ,you're the speaking voice of Truth and I'm Plato's reincarnation gone mad.Sorry.next time I'll try to be Heracleitus.
OK all matters and problems solved.
Glen said so.
I just give up.