wandeljw wrote:Quote:Creationism to be banished from Swedish schools
(The Local, News From Sweden, October 15, 2007)
"Pupils must be protected from all forms of fundamentalism," said Education Minister Jan Björklund to Dagens Nyheter.
That's a rather broad statement. Interesting that he chose to protect students from fundamentalism.
wande wrote-
Quote:The Swedish government is to crack down on the role religion plays in independent faith schools.
Sweden is a country of 9 m people 84% of whom live in urban areas which make up 1.3% of its land area. It has strong feminist and temperence movements and it failed to assist in cracking down on Hitler.
Agriculture is 2% of GDP. It is a world leader in taxation (50%+) and public service employees who can be assumed to be sitting in offices dreaming up schemes of aggravation.
A recent survey showed that 69% of the population were either atheist, agnostic or having no religion. The US figure is 14%.
What can one expect?
I would guess that the initiative is primarily to do with doubling the number of inspections of both council-run and independent schools which will obviously boost employment in the public sector possibly without having any effect on anything.
I hardly think the report is relevant to this discussion.
Are there no reports from Tierra del Fuego wande. Or St Kitts and Nevis.
But apparently Goldstein believes something equally silly.
Quote:Of course, there could be things beyond the reach of science. But could we have any good evidence for accepting it? As soon as you have good evidence, it becomes science. So can there be good evidence for non-scientific propositions? No. Because the minute there is good evidence, it becomes science.
And in wande's quote there was this-
Quote:something most scientists reject.
What does "most" mean. One imagines science to be the things all scientists agree on.
real life wrote:
But apparently Goldstein believes something equally silly.
Quote:Of course, there could be things beyond the reach of science. But could we have any good evidence for accepting it? As soon as you have good evidence, it becomes science. So can there be good evidence for non-scientific propositions? No. Because the minute there is good evidence, it becomes science.
Well, after all, they are jewish.
But perhaps you could elucidate what Goldstein says above that is "silly". You probably ought to specify the precise logical fallacies she violates and which produce the 'silliness'
spendius wrote:What does "most" mean. One imagines science to be the things all scientists agree on.
Nein und abermals nein!
Consensus is not a requisite of the scientific method. In fact quite the opposite is often the case else science would not progress.
Quote:Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
blatham wrote:real life wrote:
But apparently Goldstein believes something equally silly.
Quote:Of course, there could be things beyond the reach of science. But could we have any good evidence for accepting it? As soon as you have good evidence, it becomes science. So can there be good evidence for non-scientific propositions? No. Because the minute there is good evidence, it becomes science.
Well, after all, they are jewish.
But perhaps you could elucidate what Goldstein says above that is "silly". You probably ought to specify the precise logical fallacies she violates and which produce the 'silliness'
I thought that the quote I provided was pretty clear.
Her implication is that all 'good' evidence is 'scientific'.
One is in some difficulty knowing how to respond to facile, sweeping and self-reassuring generalisations in posts which are tolerable to A2K viewers.
In the philosophy of science there are epistemological and metaphysical considerations.
The former is concerned with the justification and objectivity of scientific knowledge which overlaps with questions about the philosophy of knowledge generally. The latter, the metaphysics, is concerned with the puzzling aspects of reality which scientific investigations expose to view.
I am aware that anti-IDers don't think there are any puzzles and that eventually science will explain everything.
Within the epistemological field there are philosophical problems associated with "induction", with Popper's "falsification" theory, with Bayesian confirmation ideas (popular with gamblers), with the problem of "unobservables" such as atomic particles and viruses (instrumentalism), with "Realists", who claim that science can treat with unobservables, with the Duhem-Quine theory (smoke and mirrors), the "cooking-up" hypothesis (snake oil), with Kuhn and Feyerabend's notions of how scientists are a-priori conditioned and that scientific truth is not even available with observables, the idea that different theories can be conjured up from the same data, with the "historical error" theory which says that so many past theories are wrong that it is safe to assume our's are too, with questions of "likeness to truth" and the "suck-it-and-see" theory which a-priori assumes cash on the nail for scientists and their minders.
The metaphysics of science involves the analysis of "causality" ( a sacred tenet) starting with common sense, on through Hume and Hempel into direction of causation (time direction) and thence to probability leading to chains of cause and effect and arriving, of course, at the first cause which is irreducibly complex although common sense might easily conclude that "something" caused everything to happen, (assuming it's not all a dream), rather than nothing having done and that the intelligence of the "something" is not a matter of discussion for humble folks such as us lot.
Causes can increase the probability of an effect even from a very low figure to just a low figure.
(That has been used to prove that smoking causes diseases which is not a scientifically valid statement as it stands although useful to certain types of interfering busybodies who hate being as anonymous as their talents suggest they ought to be because it allows, when blithely assumed as a fact, the avoidance of any studies relating to whether people prone to disease more readily seek solace in what J.M.Barrie called My Lady Nicotine or any consideration of over-use of tobacco in circumstances of idleness, other dietary abuses, or workplace pollutants and thus allows people to place the onus on evil tobacco companies rather than on themselves or their employers which in turn creates lucrative jobs within the legal profession which goes along with the original proposition for that very reason.
If, say, the % of of the population which ends up in a lunatic asylum was X% and it was found that the % of A2Kers who end up in lunatic asylums was (X+n)% would a scientist say that A2K causes madness? It might be that mad people at the incipient phase seek relief on A2K and without A2K the (X+n)% might go up to (X+2n)%. Replacing A2K with Internet the matter might be easily studied by any university department, in the same manner that "shopaholicism" has been studied, which can prise a grant out of a networking system and the Professor in charge could end up an internationally renowned object of veneration.
It is just as scientific to say that the medical profession will recommend lifestyles which fill its coffers fastest and longest.)
Probabilities are very dangerous and particularly so in the wrong hands and with everybody half asleep.
Are urban atheists more prone to anything which rural, superstitious boondockers are not apart from general all-round stupidity, arrogance, intolerance and assertiveness. Even the ancient Greeks knew that narcissists dive head first into those parts of the primal ooze which have reflective surfaces despite the reflectivity quotient being lower than those in fashionable ladies dress shops.
Keynes thought that probabilities were subjective degrees of belief. What degrees are involved in the belief that there is no intelligent first cause irrespective of whether the design is approved.
And then there is the problem of the observed being altered by the act of observation. The whales that do those spectacular leaps might only perform them because they have seen a camera. What is reported are merely descriptions of the altered states and not the things as they are unobserved (reality).
And, last but not least in this context, there is the "teleological" problem with special reference to biology lessons for 70 million kids very few of whom are, sadly, anti-IDers; most being little monsters.
Teleological explanations, especially in biology, and more especially in evolution theory, explain causes from effects and are thus a fruitful field for speculation, self-justification if some aspects are ignored, grant-aided largesse, work avoidance and photo-ops.
PS- Reductionism says that science is hierarchical and that biology is reduced by physiology, physiology by chemistry and chemistry by physics and some say physics by mathematics. D.M. Armstrong's Materialist Theory of Mind sees all thoughts, feelings, responses and emotions as physical objects subject only to the laws of physics and that a person is a democratic, atheistic, non-smoking bag of pharmaceuticals in the same way that a hanging valley is formed by the physical principles of liquids under gravitation and habit or the manner in which rabbits, and other furry creatures, run along preferred pathways. Reductionism would say, I think, that anything scientists are not sgreed uopn, is not science.
I think you guys need to put a bit more effort into your scientific thinking before you start cosying up to Science in order to impress those lower down the intelligence scale or to lecture us all on how the next generation should be prepared to take up the sad tasks which will be allotted to them as they care for us in our dotage.
While the big words sound impressive I have made it through science without EVER coming into contact with metaphysics. Epistemology is used to define our limits of knowledge. Philosophy doesn't come within the realm of science AT ALL. When you read something on the Philosophy of science you are reading about someone's opinion of philosophy as they relate it to science, or more likely, as they bastardize science to prove their philosophical point is the correct one. Science sits by itself in a corner and hums as it waits for something real to work on.
Before you start the blather present ONE
JUST ONE
paper dealing with metaphysics in a peer reviewed science journal.
Here is something you can try...if you're having a heart attack go see a philosopher rather than a doctor, discuss the ramifications of Kant's philosophy on your illness but do it quickly you'll have little time for a detailed response.
I see you're still not feeling well. I'm still pulling for you
I do wish people would cease to capitalise certain words for emphasis as if readers are unable to comprehend what they have said without them and it would be nice if we could avoid incoherent, non-scientific and subjective assertions such as-
Quote:I have made it through science
Would you like my C.V.?
On the contrary I assume you perceive everything that us mere mortals are blind to. My knowledge of science comes from years of study, yours seems to come from osmosis, opinion, and a thesaurus.
The capitalization didn't change anything I said but allowed you a diversion from the points I made. Perhaps you just forgot to cite that journal reference to prove your point?
Feel better!
Quote:Before you start the blather present ONE
JUST ONE
paper dealing with metaphysics in a peer reviewed science journal.
Here's three:
The Penrose-Hameroff "Orch OR" model of consciousness. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society London (A) 356:1869-1896 (1998)
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/hvf/papers/maturana05selfconsciousness.html
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1995/TGERMINE.html
And if Nature is your guiding star why is the life of a child more important than that of a worm? Is that metaphysical enough?
Anti-ID is one giant load of bollocks got up by the awkward squad who have a justified reputation for dropping the platoon in the **** with the Sgt. Major.
Interesting links fressie. (You have to have a nickname round here or your not in the swim.)
Fresco. I am very familiar with Penrose he is not talking metaphysics he is talking about a working QM model of consciousness. His work is based on mathematical models (albeit not fully developed) not philosophical meanderings. If he fully develops his theory it will be testable and disprovable. That is one hell of a big difference.
I am also familiar with your posts where you try to use science to defend your philosophical beliefs and your tactic of telling everyone they don't understand QM when they tell you the science doesn't defend the philosophy. JoeFormChicago gets this regularly from you. When I pointed out the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM was meant to be a document of epistemology, which was the reason the conference was called in the first place, not of philosophy -- as you were trying to present it, you pointed out that you were on a philosophy thread, as if that made a difference to what the conference was all about.
The next piece is for spendi but you can answer it too. Lets get to everyday specifics of real science.
Spendi:
I'm discussing Lewis acids with a student. I am trying to explain the concept that because aluminum chloride seeks out electrons with such avidity it leads to a lack of specificity such that aluminum chloride cannot be used in a catalyst in a nucleophilic substitution reaction.
Tell me how I explain to him how he is to take into account the implications of some philosophical school of thought on science has on this conclusion.
I am explaining that the inability of p orbitals to overlap on bridgehead positions of a molecule means that an elimination reaction can occur only across a bond that does not include the bridgehead.
Tell me how I am to work in the scientific "metaphysical" implications and exactly how those metaphysical implications directly affect Bredt's Rule.
I am teaching a group of research chemists at a pharmaceutical company about a proprietary software program that helps to analyze complex chemicals that might be used for the backbone of a chemical compound that may be useful in creating a new drug for diabetes. I am explaining how to use this software to determine if a moiety on the chemical may have a high probability to be carcinogenic or teratoginec in nature.
Tell me how to work in the idea that the primal generative monad may not be causal in its relationship to the universal nexus.
Then tell me when, in each situation, I'm asked what the hell any of this has to do with science and what they are trying to learn/do I am to answer them.
Now even if you don't understand the specifics of these scenarios you can still surely explain how this directly affects the specific situations above. And you should be able to do it in a short paragraph or two for each situation without the need to quote Bob Dylan or some obscure philosopher's even more obscure writings. And you can explain if this is so integral to science why you can get through at least a master's degree and I'm sure a doctorate also without having to take a single philoposhy or metaphysics course. What courses of these types were equired for your science degree(s)?
If you cannot then I see only two conclusions:
Your meanderings have no use whatsoever in the type of scientific endeavor that goes on all around the world every day.
Or
You have no clue what you are talking about and the use of convoluted sentences containing multi-syllabic words, with terms only a philosophy student has any reason to care about doesn't change that.
**************************************************
By the way, NONE of these are peer reviewed articles. Sorry about the caps Spendi.
The first one is not by Penrose himself but by someone using some of Penrose's ideas to support his own ideas, that I assume he couldn't get published. The last sentence states:
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Roger Penrose who doesn't necessarily endorse the newer proposals, Dave Cantrell for illustrations and Carol Ebbecke for expert assistance.
The peer reviewed journal articles that are referenced seem to be basic science they do not deal with the metaphysical.
The link at the top of the page of the second leads to a web page that pronounces itself:
The world's leading publisher of management journals and databases
The structure is not of a research paper and again the references seem to be to general science.
If these "real" peer reviewed journals support the above material why not show those articles instead. Anyone can reference a journal article. I see a lot of this from creationists that reference an article on the cell wall or something else that has nothing to do with supporting their writings.
I am actually disappointed I was hoping the Penrose stuff was from a journal. I would have loved to have read it.
TheCorrectResponse
So according to you "epistemology" is not "philosophy" !
.....very convenient
.
.....and obviously, you must contact the Royal Society to tell them the title of their journal is wrong !
I am not a supporter of ID simply because "intelligence" may not be meaningful from a non-anthropocentric objective. In this respect I recommend the Maturana reference as a "scientific styled" entree to such a position.
Non-anthropocentrism is a metaphysical stance which holds "scientific knowledge" at arm's length in order to examine its linkages with the human urge and propensity to "predict and control". As such it raises issues both of ontology and epistemology. Theists tend to avoid the position and assume such propensities are in the gift of an anthropomorphic deity..."the big controller".
