The Louisiana Science Education Act a decade later: Darwin not worshipped, swamp monsters not on the loose

_{News
July 2, 2018

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, science education

2}_{Categories
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
science education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Louisiana Science Education Act From David Klinghoffer at ENST:

This week we’re celebrating the tenth anniversary of the passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act. It was a turning point in the effort to secure academic freedom for science teachers. That effort was never going to be an overnight success, but the LSEA marked an important beginning.

Yes. Who could forget Pants-in-knot and the hysteria he generated about the dark ages emerging from the swampy Bayou?

In fact, West notes, the LSEA shattered clichés like that in several ways. For one, it enjoyed broad bipartisan support — it was not a matter of Republicans versus Democrats. That’s got to be one reason it has resisted attempts at repeal led by activist Zack Kopplin, who has since moved on to other pursuits (as Sarah Chaffee notes here). For another, it enjoyed support from scientists. It was, again, not a battle of citizens versus science.

Finally, it was not “anti-science” at all but on the contrary, pro-science: that is, if by science you mean an enterprise entailing critical, objective analysis and weighing of evidence. In fact, the LSEA took inspiration from Darwin himself, who wrote that in scientific inquiries, “a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” More.

Podcast

See also: Pants in knot: “Creationism” in Louisiana schools

and

Pants in knot II: Creationism growth sparks concern in Ivy League

Comments

Eugene S @ 14
“But since it has worked so well for us thus far” Yes, but why?! What is the reason why our mind can build adequate models about reality? Why can we rely on our own mind?
Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is this Universe the way it is? The simple if unhelpful answer to all these questions is "We don't know". All we can do is keep beavering away with what we have and hope we'll get to the answers eventually. Sadly, there are a lot of things that you and I will never know but that's the way it is.Seversky_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PST}

P.S You write,
The attempt to imply near certainty — “validated” — and to suggest that controversy, correction and replacement of theories is not a major aspect of the history and patterns of science is a further red flag.
Perhaps if you had quoted the whole statement, you would have noticed the statements bolded below:
Preamble All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts. Declaration The National Science Teachers Association endorses the proposition that science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products. The following premises are important to understanding the nature of science. Scientific knowledge is simultaneously reliable and tentative. Having confidence in scientific knowledge is reasonable while realizing that such knowledge may be abandoned or modified in light of new evidence or reconceptualization of prior evidence and knowledge. Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work. Creativity is a vital, yet personal, ingredient in the production of scientific knowledge. Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. A primary goal of science is the formation of theories and laws, which are terms with very specific meanings. Laws are generalizations or universal relationships related to the way that some aspect of the natural world behaves under certain conditions. Theories are inferred explanations of some aspect of the natural world. Theories do not become laws even with additional evidence; they explain laws. However, not all scientific laws have accompanying explanatory theories. Well-established laws and theories must be internally consistent and compatible with the best available evidence; be successfully tested against a wide range of applicable phenomena and evidence; possess appropriately broad and demonstrable effectiveness in further research. Contributions to science can be made and have been made by people the world over. The scientific questions asked, the observations made, and the conclusions in science are to some extent influenced by the existing state of scientific knowledge, the social and cultural context of the researcher and the observer's experiences and expectations. The history of science reveals both evolutionary and revolutionary changes. With new evidence and interpretation, old ideas are replaced or supplemented by newer ones. While science and technology do impact each other, basic scientific research is not directly concerned with practical outcomes, but rather with gaining an understanding of the natural world for its own sake.
jdk_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PST}

Mentioning that pseudoscience should not be included in science class (for example, crystal power) or that supernatural explanations are not scientific (for example, illness is caused by being possessed by demons) does NOT say that science is the only form of valid knowledge, or that the material world is all there is. Mentioning these precautions, and using the word "naturalistic" does not "bring in scientism", except in the minds of people like you who see the bogeyman of materialism everywhere.jdk_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PST}

JDK, the key point lies in redefining science -- held to be our primary source of reliable 'validated" knowledge -- in terms of "natural" explanations and concepts, then using strongly dismissive terminology that inter alia announced censorship. The patent subtext of "natural" is the suffix -ISTIC, and the further clear import of the strawman caricature of alternatives as pseudo-science and as contrated as "supernatural," when the artificial is relevant, is to bring in scientism. That pattern is multiplied by a glaring error by contrast with Newton, not cogently addressing the epistemology and logic; which would bring out that the statement is an act of philosophy, not of science or of simple summary for education -- exploding scientism. When we see the further action of holding children hostage for the accreditation of their education for the use of a historically well warranted summary of science and its methods, five years later, this underscores the point. The attempt to imply near certainty -- "validated" -- and to suggest that controversy, correction and replacement of theories is not a major aspect of the history and patterns of science is a further red flag. The overall pattern is that of ideological domination and agenda, whether or not that is fully recognised by the average science student or teacher. So, it is time to face the problem rather than whistle by the graveyard in the dark of night. KF PS: Ideological captivity is not calculated lying.kairosfocus_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PST}

kf writes,
JDK, we have seen above where the national science teachers association of the USA is teaching what directly implies that “the material world is all there is.”
No, you have not shown one line of the statement, in any way, that says "“the material world is all there is", or that "directly implies" that is true. The statement describes what science is, but it does not say that that science is all there is. You are, in the words that others have imputed to me, lying when you deny the facts that are right in front of you. Quote me a line from the statement that says, or implies, that the material world is all there is.jdk_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PST}

JDK, we have seen above where the national science teachers association of the USA is teaching what directly implies that "the material world is all there is." Likewise, on the impact of scientism, we can see from the connotations of terms used: pseudoscientific, supernatural, etc. You may not see it, after all what is implicit tends to have that effect, but it is nevertheless real. The question of hidden curricula rooted in dominant worldviews and cultural agendas is a notorious issue in education, and the NSTA cite shows the fact. You again resort to trying to dismiss me with a loaded term instead of address the substantial matter on its merits. KFkairosfocus_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PST}

Please give me an example of a high school teacher teaching that the material world is all there is, and that science is the only way to true knowledge. I have been around high school science teaching for almost 40 years, and I have only heard of a few instances where a teacher crossed the line into discussing materialism. (And of course there are countless examples of teachers advocating creationism, including YEC.) There is no "hidden curriculum" in high school science classes. Being concerned about this is a bit paranoid.jdk_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PST}

JDK, it is clear that you are not responding to the epistemology and logic issues highlighted classically by Newton and which are manifest in the concerns about the NSTA and NAS interventions. I note, you have spoken to quoting persons, rather than addressing substantial issues. This is the rhetoric of personalising and polarising, and is counter-productive. Indeed, you have resorted to an extremely loaded, accusatory and personal term: "paranoid." It is clear that you need to pull back a few notches there. I put it to you that the above shows good cause for me and others to be concerned about ideological loading and hidden curriculum . . . which happens to be a fairly broad concern on education, for cause. Next, Newton's classic statement is at the historic root of the understanding of what modern science is and is echoed in the standard definitions of science and its methods taught to generations in school. They are rooted in significant insights on empirical investigation and inductive reasoning, as he directly stated, duly noting limitations of such warrant for knowledge claims. Of course, his concept of induction is too narrow, it is a classic view. Today, we understand induction as argument based on empirical support for conclusions, and with that modification, we arrive at an abductive, inference to best current, empirically accountable explanation understanding of science. The minority report that you and others sought to discredit and overturn provided a definition of science for schools that does not draw its warrant from whether or no they supported Intelligent Design (if they did, that speaks well of their ability to see through a wall of obfuscation, caricature and aggressive bigotry). No, IT COMES FROM THE HISTORICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND LOGICAL WARRANT. Which, you have failed to cogently address. That is telling on the balance on the merits. KFkairosfocus_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PST}

Hmmm. I don't think quoting Plato, Newton, and the ID minority advocates on the KS Science Standards committee amounts to a decisive rebuttal. It is your somewhat paranoid perception that somehow philosophical naturalism will "lie hidden in the curriculum" even though the NSTA statement does not say or imply that.jdk_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PST}

JDK, just for record, I again cite with markups which document my concerns:
PREAMBLE: All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations [--> declaration of intent to censor instructional content], generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> ideological imposition of a loaded definition] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.
The facts are there on record, especially when we note the significance of "natural_ISTIC concepts" and natural_ISTIC explanations." Again, Collins English dictionary:
NATURALISM . . . 5. (Philosophy) philosophy a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations b. the meta-ethical thesis that moral properties are reducible to natural ones, or that ethical judgments are derivable from nonethical ones.
Just to show that the positions are not particularly scientific in character nor are they driven by requisites of warranting knowledge claims, but are demonstrably ideological I also cite Plato in The Laws Bk X, 2350+ years ago:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
The alignment is not coincidental. Now, onward you have tried to dismiss concerns that we are actually a step beyond, i.e. the full ideology is evolutionary materialistic scientism. Where, scientism can be understood as the notion that big-S Science delimits possible or significant knowledge. That is, what lies beyond Science is either psuedo-science [falsely claiming the authority and reliability of science] or is un-scientific [and inferior, typically reducing to perceptions, opinions and beliefs]. Thus, there is a characteristic subtext -- key term -- of contempt towards what is not scientific, leading to the ideological stance that Science and its big-M Methods (or even Method, no plural) is substandard at best, suspect or fraudulent at worst. Again, such is not going to be explicitly stated, it will lie in the hidden curriculum. An excellent illustration comes from the joint NSTA-NAS letter in the context of the disputes in Kansas, c 2005:
. . . the members of the Kansas State Board of Education who produced Draft 2-d of the KSES have deleted text defining science as a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena, blurring the line between scientific and other ways of understanding. Emphasizing controversy in the theory of evolution -- when in fact all modern theories of science are continually tested and verified -- and distorting the definition of science are inconsistent with our Standards and a disservice to the students of Kansas. Regretfully, many of the statements made in the KSES related to the nature of science and evolution also violate the document’s mission and vision. Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.
What is this horrible distortion of THE definition of science?
“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”
Only a radical ideologue could object to this historically well-warranted summary statement of science and its methods, which carefully avoids imposing insistence on natural-ISTIC explanations and concepts. For telling example, here is Newton in Opticks, Query 31, where he posed a description which lies at the root of the modern understanding of science:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.
So, it is clear that the derided and eventually overturned definition was in fact historically well-founded and epistemologically conservative, as well lacking metaphysical and ontological loading through imposition of evolutionary materialism. Thus, it was a travesty that the citizens of Kansas faced the threat of holding their children hostage by threat of dismissing the accreditation of their education for the main crime of seeking a less loaded, historically and epistemologically well warranted school level definition of science. Then, of course, it was a further travesty that it was attempted to impose the idea that all significant sciences and theories are "verified" to similar degree and exist in a state of guild consensus. Newton knew better 300+ years ago: " . . . although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of." Controversies, disagreements, correcting and even overturning formerly established theories are key aspects of science as a progressive endeavour that seeks to provide empirically reliable insights on the observable world of physical, biological and similar phenomena. So, the attempt to project bias to me fails, decisively. Likewise, there is indeed clearly a definition of science in the NSTA statement of 2000, one which is ideologically loaded and historically ignorant. Where, science has to be understood in such a way that phenomena across several centuries in the world of investigation and creation of a body of knowledge must fall under its rubric. KFkairosfocus_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PST}

Nope. It doesn't "redefine" science: it just describes mainstream modern views on what science is and does. It is certainly not "radical", and it doesn't, as I have said, state or even imply that science is the only source of knowledge or that the material world is all there is. You are reading those interpretations into the statement based on your own biases, but the statement itself does not say those things.jdk_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST}

JDK, the NSTA statement (as shown above) is deeply ideologically loaded and poses a radical, ideologised redefinition of science. KFkairosfocus_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PST}

Seversky "But since it has worked so well for us thus far" Yes, but why?! What is the reason why our mind can build adequate models about reality? Why can we rely on our own mind?Eugene S_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PST}

The NSTA statement limits science to a certain type of knowledge and a certain method. It does does not endorse philosophical naturalism. It does not imply that science has "cornered the market" on all significant knowledge. You connect the dots as you do because of your biases.jdk_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PST}

Sev (and by endorsement, JDK), you just implicitly indicted the US National Science Teachers Association. Evolutionary materialistic scientism pivots on the implication that science has cornered the market on significant knowledge, then proceeds to redefine science in evolutionary materialism-serving terms. Those, I pointed out above. Next, natural-ISM is not a neutral term, but indicates the worldview position that in effect ultimately reduces reality to "nature" [= the physical cosmos] and its blind -- and evolutionary -- processes. As Collins English dictionary summarises:
NATURALISM . . . 5. (Philosophy) philosophy a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations b. the meta-ethical thesis that moral properties are reducible to natural ones, or that ethical judgments are derivable from nonethical ones.
It is obvious why I have used the descriptive phrase, evolutionary materialism. As for methodological naturalism so-called, this boils down to the implicit imposition of this worldview on the methods and conclusions of science. That then becomes relevant in that we can see from NSTA (and others) that the "natural" is invariably contrasted with the despised "SUPER-natural" when since Plato in The Laws Bk X, the obvious and non-question-begging alternative is vs the "ART-ificial," thus intelligent, purposeful and foresighted. So, we see the setting up and knocking over of a worldview-level "god of the gaps" strawman. The point being, that we in fact routinely identify and recognise designed entities from empirically tested, reliable signs and should not lock out the power of such an inference to the best, empirically warranted explanation when it is inconvenient for evolutionary materialistic ideology. Where, an abductive inference to the best, empirically grounded explanation is precisely not an appeal to ignorance and gaps, but a case of grounding inference on what we do know. For instance, we have in hand a trillion observed cases of FSCO/I. In every one of them, the known cause is design, i.e. intelligently directed configuration. This is backed up by the needles in haystack search challenge to find deeply isolated islands of function in configuration spaces where the complexity exceeds 500 - 1,000 bits of information; where we have sol system or observed cosmos level atomic resources and up to 14 BY or so to carry out the search. Where such a pattern of deep isolation is implied by the requirement of multiple, well-matched, correctly arranged, oriented and coupled parts to achieve relevant function. It is also backed by the observed pattern of say AA sequence space and the patterns of proteins. Many phenomena connected to coded information and the corruption caused by noise are similar. I also note that sense b, in effect implies that moral issues, those of ought, form an isolated domain of thought that on naturalism in sense a will be ungrounded in the core realities of the world. This forces the sort of relativism and subjectivism I have often pointed out. The key problem is, that this then becomes self-referentially incoherent as rational responsible thought is governed by the sense that our thought life is morally governed by duties to truth, sound reasoning, fairness etc. The implication of naturalism is, such obligations can have no roots in ultimate -- imagined, physical or quasi-physical -- reality, so it is a grand delusion. The practical consequence is to reduce the world of thought and action to might and/or manipulation make 'truth' 'right' 'knowledge' etc etc. This amorality opens the door to nihilism, as Plato warned against 2350+ years ago. With this key destabilisation of the life of minded, responsible, rational freedom, the whole system is pervaded by grand delusion, undermining even science itself. And of course, education also. Now, all of this is or should be familiar, as is the pattern of systematic blindness to it. Such are the ways of a paradigm, as such is as much a way of not seeing as it is a way of seeing. And, it is a general observation that when things in an ideological framework are set up to work by implications and are not explicitly declared, a great many people find it very hard to connect the dots that the dominant paradigm locks out. The subtle and implicit can dominate and are hard to recognise for what they are when the implication is, culture dominating, largely unexamined metaphysical commitments. Hence the importance of critical, comparative difficulties based worldviews analysis. That's a point that goes back to Plato's parable of the cave. It should also be familiar. I am connecting those dots, and it will be very hard for those who are part of the dominant paradigm to sufficiently transcend the scheme of thought to see what "should not be there," but is. KFkairosfocus_{July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PST}

re 10: yes.jdk_{July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PST}

kairosfocus @ 2
Sev, I have a problem. More or less, I find it astonishing that routinely, a longstanding ideology — we can trace it back 2300+ years on record — that is demonstrably self-referentially incoherent and therefore self-falsifying is routinely allowed to dress itself up in a lab coat and present itself as big-S Science.
Which ideology are we talking about?
If you are concerned about Creationist teachers bringing Creationism into the school room, why aren’t you at least as concerned over evolutionary materialist ideology and indoctrination, an indoctrination that has been taken to the point where the very definition of what science is and what its methods are has been re-written under ideological control and imposed under threat of unjustifiably discounting the education of students taught a far more historically justified definition? Something is very wrong here and needs to be set right. KF
If any high school science teachers are promoting atheism or claiming that science has proven that God does not exist then they are just as wrong as those who teach creationism. Students should be taught the history and the current state of knowledge and thinking in science. They don't have to believe it but they should be able to understand it. If those teachers are discussing the origins of life the Universe and everything then they should be explaining that, although there is a great deal of speculating and hypothesizing, science cannot account for these things at this time and that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable position. Naturalism and, more specifically, methodological naturalism are neither self-referentially incoherent nor self-falsifying but the strongest defense for it comes from the results. From this computer to understanding the causes of diseases and providing effective treatments to sending space probes to where distant planets will be many years in the future, MN works. Will it always be so? Who knows? But since it has worked so well for us thus far, it makes sense to keep on doing the same until we have a good reason to abandon it, apocalypses notwithstanding.Seversky_{July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PST}

PS: I think a less loaded understanding is that science, at its best, is the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive, observational evidence-led pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on: a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical -- real-world, on the ground -- observations and measurements, b: inference to best current -- thus, always provisional -- abductive explanation of the observed facts, c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [[including Einstein's favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments], d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and, e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, "the informed" is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.) As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world.kairosfocus_{July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST}

JDK, Once science discusses origins of cosmos, life, body plans and mind -- which routinely comes up in secondary level science education nowadays, it becomes a much broader field than you suggest; one that has to exert particular care not to impose begged questions. And, we know that intelligence acting by art and design produce observable and characteristic signs of such action, which are in fact routinely studied using observation experiment, hypothesis testing and the like. So, to a priori rule out and caricature a relevant class of causes is to beg big questions. That is precisely what a definition cast in terms of natural-ISTIC causes and explanations does. In that context I note how just above you have shifted language and context in a way that is less explicit but in fact begs the same questions as I previously pointed out. The you don't understand gambit, fails. KFkairosfocus_{July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PST}

Pardon pointing out your errors in thinking, kf, but to describe science as a limited enterprise which seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena does not imply that natural phenomena are all that exist, or that science is the only way in which we seek knowledge. I suggest you rethink and reassess your understandings of this issue.jdk_{July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PST}

JDK, pardon a direct statement, but your counter-claim is plainly wrong. For, "naturalistic concepts" is already an imposition of the worldview of naturalism, which is in descriptive terms evolutionary materialism; often with the added implication of scientism. That is, we see here an imposed ontology that is implicitly physicalist and the further imposition of the assumption that what we see in the world was shaped across time by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, constraining our investigations by a priori excluding the possibility of intelligent action in shaping the cosmos, the origin of life, origin of major body plans and origin of conscience-guided, responsible, rational mind. This is question-begging and forces persisting in a failed attempt to account for functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 - 1,000 bits on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. It is also self-referentially incoherent and self-falsifying once the account is stretched to suggest that mindedness is adequately explained on GIGO-limited, cause-effect chain driven computational substrates, as can be seen in brief from J B S Haldane's well-known remark:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
Next, as demarcation arguments have failed, "pseudoscientific" in this context becomes little more than further imposition. These are already in the context of an ideologically loaded re-definition of science, its methods and the nature of its results. The term "naturalistic explanations" further reinforces the point. The imposed contrast, "natural[istic]" vs "supernatural" leaves out a very relevant alternative which is open to empirical investigation: natural (meaning blind chance and/or mechanical necessity) vs the ART-ificial (meaning by intelligent design), a conception which has been on the table since at least Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 2350+ years past. Going back, in such a context, "exclusion" of allegedly non- or pseudo- scientific "methods, explanations, generalizations and products" becomes a declaration of a policy of censorship and indoctrination. Thus, my markup as was put on the table already is justified and your dismissive comment that "nothing in this statement endorses materialism" is patently refuted. The underlying suggestion, that markup is tantamount to distortion, fails. Markup can highlight and bring out the substance that may be easily overlooked, and it then allows corrective remarks to be put into the context. Which, is patently legitimate. I suggest that you need to revisit and seriously rethink what you and others did in Kansas and elsewhere. KFkairosfocus_{July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PST}

Oops: here it is with proper blockquoting. In case someone wants to read this without kf's editorializing:
PREAMBLE: All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge.
I will note that nothing in this statement endorses materialism.jdk_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PST}

In case someone wants to read this without kf's editorializing: PREAMBLE: All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. I will note that nothing in this statement endorses materialism as a metaphysical position.jdk_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PST}

PS: In case someone does not know my context, here is the US National Science Teachers Association, July 2000:
PREAMBLE: All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations [--> declaration of intent to censor instructional content], generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> ideological imposition of a loaded definition] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.
kairosfocus_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PST}

Sev, I have a problem. More or less, I find it astonishing that routinely, a longstanding ideology -- we can trace it back 2300+ years on record -- that is demonstrably self-referentially incoherent and therefore self-falsifying is routinely allowed to dress itself up in a lab coat and present itself as big-S Science. The same, is also well known to be amoral and to open the door to outright nihilism, known since the days of Plato. If you are concerned about Creationist teachers bringing Creationism into the school room, why aren't you at least as concerned over evolutionary materialist ideology and indoctrination, an indoctrination that has been taken to the point where the very definition of what science is and what its methods are has been re-written under ideological control and imposed under threat of unjustifiably discounting the education of students taught a far more historically justified definition? Something is very wrong here and needs to be set right. KFkairosfocus_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PST}

Yes. Who could forget Pants-in-knot and the hysteria he generated about the dark ages emerging from the swampy Bayou?
No, no sign of "the dark ages emerging from the swampy Bayou" bit it's not for want of trying...
Louisiana Teachers Are Using The Bible in Science Class

Kopplin has been heavily campaigning to have the law repealed since he was a high school student. He has written extensively on the subject, detailing evidence of creationism in at least eight school districts in Louisiana. After sending several freedom of information requests, he has discovered more damning evidence. One teacher sent the following email to their principle: You wanted me to let you know when I was planning the Creation point of view. I will be doing this on Monday 3/21. The students will actually be doing most of the presenting. We will read in Genesis and them some supplemental material debunking various aspects of evolution from which the students will present. The same principal received a PowerPoint presentation, entitled “Theories on the Origin of Life,” which contained a page that says “Creationism relies on the claim that there is a ‘purpose’ to all creation known only to the creator.” “In Caddo Parish, one teacher explained that she teaches creationism because ‘God made science.’ […] In another email entitled “Support from a Bossier teacher,” a 4th grade teacher claims that a woman who was suing their school was told "Welcome to the Bible Belt, m'am." They go on to say: “Anyway, just wanted to tell you that we need more teachers like you and that my great granddaddy wasn't a monkey either!”
There's even more evidence of no Dark Ages in the Bayou here, such as...
Yet in the fall of 2013, at Negreet High School, in Sabine Parish, teacher Rita Roark insulted the religion of C.C. Lane, a Buddhist student in her sixth-grade science class. Roark told the class that evolution is a “stupid” theory that “stupid people made up because they don’t want to believe in God.” Roark’s science tests included a fill-in-the-blank question that said, “ISN'T IT AMAZING WHAT THE _____________ HAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” and students were expected to write in “LORD.”
Yup, move along, nothing to see here.Seversky_{July 2, 2018
July
07
Jul
2
02
2018
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply