wandeljw wrote:I posted a different UK article a couple of weeks ago where a Church of England Canon criticized the education ministry for making religious education a dumping ground for fantasy.
Yes, this is what I made reference to in my previous post.
timberlandko wrote:Quote:Basler chair defends scientific method
Visiting professor discusses intelligent design and evolution
Guy Kramer
Posted: 1/25/07
Though Harker asserted that ID didn't belong in the science classroom, he did support bringing ID into higher education. "I think many of the issues ID raises should be discussed," Harker said, adding that those topics would fit into a philosophy of science class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2007 East Tennessean
Good idea. Philosophy of science class.
But then we couldn't teach the Philosophy of Science, within a science class because it would contain ID, which runs afoul of the first amendment...
It would seem odd not to be able to talk about the philosophy of science, within a science class.
We have a Philosophy of science as an elective within the science department. We also have science history seminars.
farmerman wrote:We have a Philosophy of science as an elective within the science department. We also have science history seminars.
Is this a public school, or a private institution?
Do they discuss ID or Creationism within the Philosophy of Science elective currently?
By the looks of things you might be well advised to leave the philosophy of science well alone.
It is not a subject which closed minds which have retreated behind guarded shutters for mutual comfort are likely to find suitable for their iconoclastic sensibilities.
This is particularly essential for those factions which refuse to recognise that social science is overtaking the science of matter in governmental priorities now that the latter is reaching the limits of its usefulness and is presenting problems which it did not forsee and which it hasn't the faintest idea how to solve. The subject will upset their nervous equilibrium and that will never do. We don't want too much bottom lip trembling in the masculine world of the physical sciences. Watching grown men sulk like a bunch of schoolgirls is never a pretty sight.
Students are already voting it down with their feet and choosing to follow other subjects which promise greater rewards.
fm wrote-
Quote:We have a Philosophy of science as an elective within the science department. We also have science history seminars.
That you have those things says nothing about whether any serious philosophy of science or science history is studied. They may well be mere window dressing or job creation schemes for approved persons at the beginning of their dotage or simply heraldic devices to make awarded certificates look more impressive.
But it sounds good I suppose. It imputes academic respectability without the need to actually show any.
ros wrote-
Quote:Is this a public school, or a private institution?
Do they discuss ID or Creationism within the Philosophy of Science elective currently?
Those are the sort of easy questions so popular in groups which have cut themselves off from contervailing ideas and, in essence, are no more than flattering politenesses which enable respondents to have another blow on their trumpet.
Why don't you offer to lick their arses ros?
Pauligirl-
I think you have been left out of the loop. You are not supposed to recognise my existence now. The Presidium has had a secret meeting and decided I'm an un-person.
But I will say that Creationism fears ID far more than it does materialism.
Materialists and Creationists don't compete for market share. ID is the biggest threat Creationism has ever faced and it was around as a concept long before the Mayflower arrived.
It's a question of thinking in terms of labels for entities or general concepts. Thinking in labels you may well be correct but the philosophy of science has shredded such notions. Intellectuals think in concepts not labels.
I shouldn't think the Discovery Institute has ever made a discovery in it's whole existence. It is hardly a discovery that waves and money can be made with the religion/science argument.
Pythagoras was exiled or ran away on such a matter and, I read somewhere, that public discussion of indefinite numbers was a capital offence in those days.
Its a private university one of thebetter known universities
ros askedQuote:Do they discuss ID or Creationism within the Philosophy of Science elective currently?
. The development and the retrograde sciences are discussed with a number of examples including Ned Ludd , ID, "Creation SCience", phlogiston and "vis plastica" as well as the concepts of mathematics and their origins from ancient cultures through Newton and into modern interpretations of "spaces and chaos and (N) dimensional analyses" Its meant for the majors since they dont really have a lot of room for liberal arts courses (much the pity)
If the philosophy of science is to be gone into, which of course it must, account has to be taken of the vast complexity of the subject. It can be divided into two parts; the metaphysics of science and the epistemology of science.
This entails that in this medium these can only be gone into piecemeal and those interested can follow up any leads and those not intersted can suit themselves.
But if they are not interested and simply resort to a list of fine sounding words and an orgy of name dropping which give the impression of expertise and erudition without any substance they can safely be ignored by serious students.
One of the problems in the epistemology of science is the possibility of knowledge of unobservables. Instrumentalists deny that knowledge of unobservables and theories derived from such knowledge can be accepted as true descriptions of the unobservable world. They do not deny the utility of such knowledge in the service of generating observational predictions. Realists take the view that science can discover truth about unobservables but a limited truth.
Instrumentalists claim that observed data can be used for a number of different theories, sometimes incompatible theories, and cannot thus be used to justify one of them. It is always possible to "cook up" other theories based on the data. Skill with words is all that is required.
Instrumentalism rests on the distinction between observables and unobservables.
Kuhn and Feyerabend argued that observation is theory laden. That is the observations made and their significance are determined by other theories the observer might hold. Darwin is often accused of bringing his English class position into the mode in which he chose his subject, selected his data and interpreted it in order to find his privileged position in industrial England, and that of his class, and the Imperial project, right and natural.
They even went on to argue that observables are themselves not capable of revealing full scientific truth for the same reason.
Fossils are particularly susceptible to this criticism. They can be "chosen" out of a vast range of possibilities and in some cases even manufactured or adjusted and they can be interpteted in a manner which suits the existing theories of those who do the interpretation. The most common pre-existing theory conditioning the "scientific discoveries" so made are that the discoverer is a brilliant scientist and that his word should be good enough for everybody and that he thus deserves the approval of society and the fame and fortune appropriate to such approval.
Usually suspicion in this direction readily attaches to those who use big words and baffling insider language which when closely scrutinised often reveals an empty centre but which peer reviewers accept on the mutual back scratching principle.
The Realist argument is further undermined by the poor past performance of scientific theories which suggests that modern theories are susceptible to the same problems although they may well be coming nearer to the truth. The actual truth being irreducibly complex as I have explained months ago.
Such criticisms do not of course undermine the real and valued acheivements of science as a tool for the production of material welfare but they are relevant when science begins to move into areas involving religious belief and emotions.
Americans should beware of exclusive materialistic education because the removal of religious observances leads directly to a challenge of the institution of private property from which Christian theology derives and thus the introduction of Communism.
AIDsers are keen to talk about Creationists using ID to get their nose in the tent (a false claim) but they are not so keen to hear talk of closet communists using evolution to get their snouts in the trough they feel, with some justification I'll admit, belongs to them.
Naturally, within the scientific community and in courses leading to membership of it, these considerations are greeted with the cold shoulder which is itself sufficient reason to worry about it making any headway in political decision making. The Kremlin was a giant cold shoulder.
When Nietzsche pronounced the death of God he went on to say that the task was how to live without God. AIDsers have provided not one jot in all these pages on how to go about that. They don't even feel the need to.
They prefer to remain unencumbered with such sordid realities.
AUSTRALIA UPDATE
Excerpt from Melbourne Courier-Journal, January 27, 2006:
Quote:These are some of the proposals spearheading the Young Liberal Movement's annual convention in Melbourne this weekend as they seek to shape the party's policies.
Young Liberal federal president Mark Powell said the policies were underpinned by a "core focus on conservative values and limited government interference in the economy".
Topping the YLM's energy and environment policy is a commitment to nuclear power, spurning the Kyoto Protocol and resisting any action to address "alleged man-made global warming until there is conclusive evidence of its existence".
The YLM also champions the building of new coal-fired power plants to cope with increased demands for electricity.
"Coal is a clean, low-cost source of energy which Australians must continue to use to ensure the continued competitiveness of our manufacturing industries and to lower costs for the benefit of consumers," the policy reads.
The Young Liberals want intelligent design - the belief that God created the universe - kept off the school curriculum.
The policy came from the West Australian branch, who say information should not be taught in science that cannot be "predicted, tested and proven".
Well wande-
I think IDers will be well pleased that that lot are in the other camp. They sound like cavemen playing with the modern world which Christianity had delivered for them.
How young are they?
spendius wrote:How young are they?
I do not know enough about Australian politics, spendi. Maybe that is only the name of their political party.
There was an intelligent design movement recently in Australia. One Australian education minister did not allow intelligent design to be taught in the science curriculum, declaring that ID is essentially religion, not science.
(The date of the news item should be 2007. I mistakenly typed 2006.)
wande-
Might we presume that Mr Rasor's statement-
Quote:make more informed decisions."
is a polite way of suggesting that the defence at Dover took a dive. That they failed to "inform" the judge of other matters of surpassing concern to a large number of people and particularly people in rural areas.
But thanks anyway for those two reports.
It's interesting that it was said that Darwinism was official dogma in Soviet times thus slightly strengthening my connection between Darwinism and Communism.
spendius wrote:wande-
Might we presume that Mr Rasor's statement-
Quote:make more informed decisions."
is a polite way of suggesting that the defence at Dover took a dive. That they failed to "inform" the judge of other matters of surpassing concern to a large number of people and particularly people in rural areas.
spendi,
My understanding of Mr. Rasor's viewpoint is that he is concerned about future attempts to teach intelligent design as science. His conference would provide an overview of the anti-evolution movement. Information about Supreme Court cases and cultural history would tend to discourage school boards from attempting to promote intelligent design or creationism in science classes.
wandeljw wrote:RUSSIA UPDATE
Quote:Russian Schoolgirl Flees to Dominican Republic Over Compulsory Darwinism Course
(Mosnews, January 30, 2007)
Mr Shraiber said Maria had left for the Dominican Republic where she had already found a job at a real estate and travel agency.
Hopefully little Maria will be very happy working in the Real Estate and Travel Agency, where narry a word about evolution will ever be spoken.
She may have to discourage vacations to the Galapogos, you know avoiding the "E" word
rosborne979 wrote:Hopefully little Maria will be very happy working in the Real Estate and Travel Agency, where narry a word about evolution will ever be spoken.
That almost sounds like what I said to my own daughter, rosborne.
My daughter hated studying evolution, but is now happily working as a television production assistant in Los Angeles.
