h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Peace and Goodwill: >How about a class on philosophy, to learn this kind of thing on a more neutral level?<

Please, please yes!

It occurs to me that there is a gaping, philosophy-shaped hole in the curriculums of the anglophone world. How the hell are you supposed to engage young minds into critical thinking without philosophy - brainwash them with religion? Digitise their minds with science? NO! It has to be philosophy - kids should start doing it at about 13, with Ethics for Beginners. It fact, it should be compulsory for eveybody, at gunpoint if necessary

And then, talk show hosts* will be forced to pack up their bags, dribbling gobsh*tes will be roundly dismissed, politicians, statisticians and the press will have to tighten up their act and, and...

*I'll be waiting with a gun and a pack of sandwiches

Yes, of course I could do that. Just as good - maybe a lot better! - would be for all of us to say as clearly as possible what we mean, and avoid the use of terms whose meaning we know to be ambiguous, in circumstances where that ambiguity could lead to confusion.

The term originally used (IIRC) was unqualified - "proof" - not "scientific proof" or (much better) "scientific proof beyond reasonable doubt/consistant with availble evidence".

In other words: why complain about me 'nit-picking' when fixing the actual problem would seem much more desirable and constructive?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Still . . . can anyone answer why Creationism should be taught in a science class? Nothing scientific about it. I don't get it.


az

And why just the Christian creation story? There must be plenty of others knocking about - do they teach the Norse legends in science class in scandinavia?

We were talking about "proof" in the context of science. You don't have to say the words "scientific proof" to know we were talking about scientific proof.

Anyway...

They are proposing teaching creationism in its propor historical context. They single out the Christian creation myth because that's what science generally thought was how organisms got here before any ideas of evolution came about. Which is fair enough.

However, it does maybe open the door to less scrupulous teachers and schools (these horrific new "faith schools" in the UK - wtf is that about?) teaching their pet beliefs as fact.

Ste

I just think that for the purposes of any discussion not about the philosophical implications of the word proof, and objective/subjective reality. Amongst people who already accept your point PC that "proof" taken to mean "effective proof" should be ok.

If we all know I mean "effective proof" then why the need to type the extra work .

Also, its the only religion where some of its members are using pseudo-science and poor statistical reasoning to prove that the only way we could have got hrere was due to 'something' creating us.

No other religion, as far as I know, is trying to do this. They tend to shy away from the creation bit...probably because most of them are even more absurd than the Christian one.

And 'creationism' is not going to be 'taught' in schools (apart from the 'grant maintained' ones funded by Christian organisations who will teach creationism as the truth and evolution as another theory with the caveate that to actually pass an exam it is in fact the incorrect theory of evolution that you have to put down on the exam paper. This is in fact happening at the moment in various schools in Middlesborough.

Because, in contexts such as we encounter here regularly, "proof" can mean "scientific proof" (as defined previously), or it can mean "absolute, certain proof". And the difference matters:

Yer average 'layman' has a strong and clear impression that science proves things concerning the physical universe absolutely and with certainty. It is worth saying, again and again and again, that this is not so.

For example, if the discussion is a comparison of evolution and creationism, it is quite important to understand that science cannot absolutely prove the correctness of evolution, nor can it absolutely disprove the correctness of creationism. To attempt to undermine creationism in favour of evolution using either of these 'arguments' would be wrong.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ok... so,

"This is in fact happening at the moment in various schools in Middlesborough."

Is that this Vardy guy? Are these state schools or public schools? How on Earth are these places allowed?

Ste

Is that this Vardy guy?>

Oh, yes thats the dude!




State schools in not the best areas hence no chance for the kids in the catchment area to be driven in mumsies 4x4 to the nearest normal one.



God-squader PM, God-Squader Educashun Secretary(go make the tea woman!) and an urge to stop spending tax payers maoney on useful stuff.

I think the whole situation is being approached the wrong way.

Teaching children little bits in sprog-sized portions is rubbish because they always filter and mis-interpret.

Teach them instead to think, ask questions and listen to answers (then repeat from step one) and finally draw their own conclusions.

Stop teaching dogma, start teaching method.

"How the hell are you supposed to engage young minds into critical thinking without philosophy -" Jack Naples

"Teach them instead to think, ask questions and listen to answers (then repeat from step one) and finally draw their own conclusions."

Exactly! This is why I suggested philosophy.

I do think it also might help people to become a little more open-minded, if they are encouraged to see and understand the world in their own way.

The blog of one of the main players in pushing of inteligent design, Bill Dembski.

And from his biog: 'As interest in intelligent design has grown in the wider culture, Dr. Dembski has assumed the role of public *intellectual*.'

The link below is interesting:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/929

"Secondary pupils in Northern Ireland are spearheading a campaign to introduce a scientific concept, banned in the United States, into the curriculum.

Students from both secondary schools and some of the province’s most prestigious grammar schools claim that so-called intelligent design will give a “more balanced view of how the world came into being”."

Now, two questions here. Are the pupils doing it so that ID can be debunked in science lessons or are they doing it because they believe it?

If it is the former then Bill is either unaware of this OR he does know about it but like most ID information and facts he is leaving out a very important piece of information that turns the facts on its head.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/932#more-932

The link above is worth reading especially when the last two sentences are:

'The bottom line is that Darwinian hypothesizers are finally being exposed to scrutiny by those outside the field, who have a better understanding about how things really are, and about how things really work.

The resultant panic and fear-mongering by Darwinists is clear evidence that they don’t have the goods, and they know it.'

http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/news/article.html?uid=1218

Ah!, THEY DO believe in ID!

'The group has won political support for its campaign, most notably from the Democratic Unionist Party.

“It’s clear that in our schools the faith of many thousands of pupils is being actively denigrated on a daily basis and that the schools system is being used by education authorities to indoctrinate people against their own religious convictions. This must stop,” Upper Bann MP David Simpson says.'

The school system is there to teach, not to somehow include all various religious beliefs in their curriculum.


az

Ah, but, of course, the point is not to "include all various religious beliefs in their curriculum".... Just the "right" one. Because in the skewed eye of these people, NOT teaching it is somehow "indoctrinating them against their own beliefs.... Which, of course, is hogwash.

I'm reminded of a couple of signs my father brought photographs back of from India. They were hanging in railway stations in the middle of nowhere. One read

'The Allah of Islam is the same as the God of Christians and the Ishwar of Hindus',

and the other read
'Tolerance for other faiths imparts to us a true understanding of our own'.

I think they ought to be hung in all railway stations around the world.

Re the NI link: It's very difficult to ascertain how big this "petition" is since no numbers are shown. Indeed, we don't even get a feel as to who is leading the campaign, exactly what schools they are talking about, or whether this is coming from school leaders or an unrepresentative clique. It's a complete non-runner, (un-intelligently) designed to further the interests of the Free Presbyterian Church.

I just love the following comment : "spearheading a campaign to introduce a scientific concept" and "certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an 'intelligent cause'". So, the explanation is, there is no explanation, and that's a *better* answer???

A Wise person: >'Tolerance for other faiths imparts to us a true understanding of our own'.<

As true for those whose faith is scientism as for any others.

KerrAvon's sig: 'Charlie says: Say no to Drugs- cats can't talk'

This had me on a morning when I didn't expect it. for that

"Re the NI link: It's very difficult to ascertain how big this "petition" is since no numbers are shown. Indeed, we don't even get a feel as to who is leading the campaign, exactly what schools they are talking about, or whether this is coming from school leaders or an unrepresentative clique. It's a complete non-runner, (un-intelligently) designed to further the interests of the Free Presbyterian Church"

My comments exactly. I have 2 teenage children at 2 different schools in NI, and I've never heard of this petition!

Mind you, both of them compulsorily have to study RE, and that focuses on the Christian viewpoint. But that's different from having ID in your science class.

I shall investigate further!