Mistrust of Science - Evolution vs Creationism in the classroom

[Hadron90]

We both agree that what scientists and the scientific consensus says is not the "truth". Instead I am claiming that the scientific consensus the most comprehensive evaluation of the current data set done by the most qualified experts on the subject matter. Now it still could be wrong as new data can overturn any theory but we should currently base our policy on this consensus over the opinions of laymen not familiar with the data set. There are exceptions of course and those will most likely pertain to new fields without a robust background of research and study, even then it will most likely be peers that overturn a practice/theory.

To add, I absolutely agree that the peer review process can and should be modified and improved. At the fundamental level without the economic incentives I don't see a better method of corroborating new findings. I'd love to hear your thoughts on another system of verification scientists could use.

I think the easiest place to start would be waaaay more grant money set aside for verification of results. Right now, there is never an incentive to repeat another scientists experiment. Grants are only given for novel research. I know multiple times in my research I was seeing stuff that was contradicting someone something else published. So I wrote to them and got their exact simulation software and parameters and repeated it try to find the source of the discrepancy, and just got results that didn't match what they published. It looks like they simply made mistakes in the data analysis or got data files mixed up. But there is nothing to do about that other than to let them know, and they might decide to publish a correction, but probably not. And I don't get paid to care.

People that were breeding crops had an underlying knowledge of inheritable traits through their experience and testing, people developing catapults were using the scientific method to test and develop more robust designs. Do you sincerely believe as a scientist yourself that any of these advancements could have been possible with another framework outside of the scientific method?

Its not an attack on the scientific method. I'm saying that just because an idea has utility, doesn't make it true. A lot of marvels of engineering were made with bad science, because the bad science was "accurate enough" for what they are doing. But I'm talking about fundamental ontological truth. Does General Relativity work well enough for astronomers to spot black holes? Yes. Does Quantum Mechanics work well enough to make drug discoveries? Yes. But we know, fundamentally, both theories can't be true, and that likely neither is true. So if you want to make some practical drug discoveries, sure, use it until it breaks. But if you are searching absolute fundamental truth underlying the universe, you should not be basing your philosophy off QM or GR.

There is no way a person can fathom 11 dimensions of space or an event without a beginning as they are contrary to our everyday macroscopic existence. Mathematics will be the key as it is truly the language the universe and the only way those concepts can be expressed to us.

I often wonder if even our math system will need to be overhauled before we find the truth behind everything. Like I said in the analogy about a dog never being able to understand the concept of algebra, I don't see any reason to believe that our tiny human brains are capable of infinitely complex thought. Math makes sense based on our logic, but I can easily believe that there are higher forms of thought or logic that would be incomprehensible to humans, no matter how hard someone tried to teach it to us, simply because our tiny brains can't handle it. Just like no matter how hard you try to teach algebra to a dog, you will always fail.[/QUOTE]

 

[Squarechoke]

Did you pray at the alter of your god science this morning

That's unnecessarily indirect but sure, I get that you're choosing option A.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I think the easiest place to start would be waaaay more grant money set aside for verification of results. Right now, there is never an incentive to repeat another scientists experiment. Grants are only given for novel research. I know multiple times in my research I was seeing stuff that was contradicting someone something else published. So I wrote to them and got their exact simulation software and parameters and repeated it try to find the source of the discrepancy, and just got results that didn't match what they published. It looks like they simply made mistakes in the data analysis or got data files mixed up. But there is nothing to do about that other than to let them know, and they might decide to publish a correction, but probably not. And I don't get paid to care.

From what I've read and what you've stated I most definitely believe the peer review process is flawed and needs an overhaul. I do not think that this somehow invalidates theories with decades worth of experiments and findings with multiple lines of converging evidence. I'm sure there were irregularities and I'm sure there was downright corruption at some stages of development but I can't fathom how a theory could survive if it was completely wrong, it would have been overturned by now. And no, I do not believe GR and QM are completely wrong, they're incomplete like Newtonian Mechanics is.

Its not an attack on the scientific method. I'm saying that just because an idea has utility, doesn't make it true. A lot of marvels of engineering were made with bad science, because the bad science was "accurate enough" for what they are doing. But I'm talking about fundamental ontological truth. Does General Relativity work well enough for astronomers to spot black holes? Yes. Does Quantum Mechanics work well enough to make drug discoveries? Yes. But we know, fundamentally, both theories can't be true, and that likely neither is true. So if you want to make some practical drug discoveries, sure, use it until it breaks. But if you are searching absolute fundamental truth underlying the universe, you should not be basing your philosophy off QM or GR.

Perhaps for someone in your position an ontological truth would be of vital importance but for the 99.99% of the populace that wants guidance on what to teach their children and what to spend their tax dollars on it doesn't matter all that much, "accurate enough" will suffice. Does a parent really need to know if punctuated equilibrium or gradualism was the dominant model in the Cambrian in order to decide if Evolution should be taught over Creation in school? Do we need to really know the accuracy solar irradiance to 4 decimal places (Wm^2) when we know that it's been dropping to decide if Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring?

We need to know if the current theories that effect us here and now are "accurate enough" to trust our families, our money and out way of life with.

What are your thoughts on M Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. They claim to tie all the fundamental forces including gravity into a grand unified theory do they not?

I often wonder if even our math system will need to be overhauled before we find the truth behind everything. Like I said in the analogy about a dog never being able to understand the concept of algebra, I don't see any reason to believe that our tiny human brains are capable of infinitely complex thought. Math makes sense based on our logic, but I can easily believe that there are higher forms of thought or logic that would be incomprehensible to humans, no matter how hard someone tried to teach it to us, simply because our tiny brains can't handle it. Just like no matter how hard you try to teach algebra to a dog, you will always fail.

Well we've gone from arithmetic to algebra to calculus and beyond so if there is a next step (most likely there is) we will at least attempt to. I don't know what higher forms of logic even means, the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle will need to remain in tact or absolutely nothing will make sense.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

There is no such thing as an issue or a problem, there are trade offs. The question is what trade offs are individuals willing to make and which ones are they not willing to make.

From what I see they don't know who to trust, so they don't bother trusting anyone.

Everyone's been lied to in the past but not everyone decides not to trust anyone ever again, that would be extreme. Healthy skepticism is a good thing as we should be asking for evidence before we make decisions concerning our values, families or money. When it devolves into cynicism where we don't trust anybody is where it can be harmful.

 

[Hadron90]

What are your thoughts on M Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. They claim to tie all the fundamental forces including gravity into a grand unified theory do they not?

Like 20 years ago, thats what the hope was. It hasn't worked out. Today research into them is almost purely for just academic reasons. Few cosmologists still see it as a viable path for a GUT. If you see the most recent cosmology literature or watch a conference, you can see that what I'm saying is the sentiment of most of the field...we have to throw out everything we think we know about physics and start over. String theories and Loop Quantum Gravity sort of tried that, by postulating many extra dimensions, and not assuming any shape of these dimensions. But we probably have to go even more basic than that. The field is incredibly abstract now, not because physicists like sounding smart, but because the smartest people in the world have failed at a GUT for 60 years, so obviously there are basic tenets of physics believed by everyone, that aren't true and are retarding progress.

And no, I do not believe GR and QM are completely wrong, they're incomplete like Newtonian Mechanics is.

Newtonian mechanics is wrong. Its numerically wrong, and its philosophically wrong. Something being "good enough" doesn't make it right. Alchemists were making medicines and alloys before they even had atomic theories of chemistry. Their successes doesn't validate alchemy.

Quantum mechanics and General Relativity are fundamentally incompatible. Its not like you just tack an extra term onto the Schrodinger equation and the problem goes away. Both theories simply cannot be true. They say completely separate things about the nature of space and time.

This is analogous to the split between Newton and Maxwell. What lead Einstein down his train of thought was noticing that Maxwell's Equations were incompatible with Newton's theories.

Well we've gone from arithmetic to algebra to calculus and beyond so if there is a next step (most likely there is) we will at least attempt to. I don't know what higher forms of logic even means, the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle will need to remain in tact or absolutely nothing will make sense.

Of course you don't know what higher forms of logic even mean, the higher means outside of our grasp. A dog will never understand algebra. It doesn't understand the concept that algebra is even a thing. Even if it watches you doing algebra, he cannot conceptualize what your goals are or why you would try to achieve it. In the evolutionary sense, we aren't that different than dogs. Our DNA is more alike than not. We both use extremely similar organs to think. We should I believe that the dog has such limited capacity to understand logic, but that humans have unlimited capacity? I think its more likely that there are concepts that would be as impossible for us to even begin conceptualizing as it is for the dog to understand algebra.


And note: I'm not saying this to tell you to abandon scientific endeavor. Absolutely not. I'm just it means that it means we, as scientists, should remain extremely humble, and extremely skeptical of even things we believe 100% must be true.

And I'm arguing philosophy, not policy. I'm not saying we should teach creationism or defund climate studies.

 

[mortal]

I didn't bother reading the whole OP because this is more a national matter than an international one (for now that is).
I just wanted to say that the right way to be trusted is to earn it and if/when you do...at least try not to betray that trust.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Can someone post a link to an actual curriculum plan (or lesson plan) proving that Creationism is actually being taught in US public schools?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Like 20 years ago, thats what the hope was. It hasn't worked out. Today research into them is almost purely for just academic reasons. Few cosmologists still see it as a viable path for a GUT. If you see the most recent cosmology literature or watch a conference, you can see that what I'm saying is the sentiment of most of the field...we have to throw out everything we think we know about physics and start over. String theories and Loop Quantum Gravity sort of tried that, by postulating many extra dimensions, and not assuming any shape of these dimensions. But we probably have to go even more basic than that. The field is incredibly abstract now, not because physicists like sounding smart, but because the smartest people in the world have failed at a GUT for 60 years, so obviously there are basic tenets of physics believed by everyone, that aren't true and are retarding progress.

From my understanding the main reason why M-Theory and LQG have stagnated is because of the limitations of testing, both are mathematically elegant but right now there's no way to falsify either theory and we can't say that they wrong until we can 'prove' it under experimentation. Because of this limitation theoretical physics really has become detached from the realities of experimental science and has become a 'Philosophical' endeavor with mathematical frameworks. The scales are so ridiculously small I just don't know if we'll ever be able to observe a string or spin network meaningfully enough under experimentation to confirm or falsify either theory.

Also what are your thoughts on their attempts to merge their versions of the GUT with the Lambda CDM?

Newtonian mechanics is wrong. Its numerically wrong, and its philosophically wrong. Something being "good enough" doesn't make it right. Alchemists were making medicines and alloys before they even had atomic theories of chemistry. Their successes doesn't validate alchemy.

Quantum mechanics and General Relativity are fundamentally incompatible. Its not like you just tack an extra term onto the Schrodinger equation and the problem goes away. Both theories simply cannot be true. They say completely separate things about the nature of space and time.

This is analogous to the split between Newton and Maxwell. What lead Einstein down his train of thought was noticing that Maxwell's Equations were incompatible with Newton's theories.

I don't think this is a fair comparison as Alchemy's 'successes' (whatever those were) were purely coincidental as Alchemy did not have a predictive model like Newtonian Mechanics does. Sure NM was not accurate enough to describe the precession of the perihelion of Mercury but it can make verifiable predictions in its domain and was accurate enough to get us to the moon and back. Because of this NM is valued enough to be still taught in schools with of the footnote that it is superseded outside of the macroscopic human realm. QM and GR are the most accurate theories in the history of science *in their domains* but fall apart when they move into each others. I guess were arguing semantics here as what you see as wrong I see as incomplete.

Of course you don't know what higher forms of logic even mean, the higher means outside of our grasp. A dog will never understand algebra. It doesn't understand the concept that algebra is even a thing. Even if it watches you doing algebra, he cannot conceptualize what your goals are or why you would try to achieve it. In the evolutionary sense, we aren't that different than dogs. Our DNA is more alike than not. We both use extremely similar organs to think. We should I believe that the dog has such limited capacity to understand logic, but that humans have unlimited capacity? I think its more likely that there are concepts that would be as impossible for us to even begin conceptualizing as it is for the dog to understand algebra.

This may be true but it's difficult for me to accept as mathematics and logic give us the fundamental tools to tackle concepts (like infinity) that our limited primate brains cannot deal with on their own. I guess we'll never know the answer to this question.

And note: I'm not saying this to tell you to abandon scientific endeavor. Absolutely not. I'm just it means that it means we, as scientists, should remain extremely humble, and extremely skeptical of even things we believe 100% must be true.

And I'm arguing philosophy, not policy. I'm not saying we should teach creationism or defund climate studies.

So what are your thoughts on policy? When is a scientific theory "good enough" to teach to our children and base economic policy on?

 

[Andy Capp]

We're using technology based on Quantum Mechanics right now to access Sherdog. Everything modern convenience around you that you utilize was brought to you by science.

I think it's interesting that whenever it comes to this kind of discussion, the response to this oft used assertion is never "Prove it."

 

[Andy Capp]

It is though. It can't really be quantified with certainty. One would have to be able to alter and verify the density of planets size and their position in order to absolutely verify it

Just the same way evolution relies on dating things with astronomical time scales that there is no control to use as verification of said time scale.

Of course it can. Are you high? Honest question.

 

[Graves The Elder]

My neighbor has a giant sign on the lawn that says "Science is Real".
Is anyone suggesting otherwise?
Now, can science and scientific data be manipulated, even politicized?
Of course.

 

[Andy Capp]

From my understanding the main reason why M-Theory and LQG have stagnated is because of the limitations of testing, both are mathematically elegant but right now there's no way to falsify either theory and we can't say that they wrong until we can 'prove' it under experimentation. Because of this limitation theoretical physics really has become detached from the realities of experimental science and has become a 'Philosophical' endeavor with mathematical frameworks. The scales are so ridiculously small I just don't know if we'll ever be able to observe a string or spin network meaningfully enough under experimentation to confirm or falsify either theory.

Also what are your thoughts on their attempts to merge their versions of the GUT with the Lambda CDM?



I don't think this is a fair comparison as Alchemy's 'successes' (whatever those were) were purely coincidental as Alchemy did not have a predictive model like Newtonian Mechanics does. Sure NM was not accurate enough to describe the precession of the perihelion of Mercury but it can make verifiable predictions in its domain and was accurate enough to get us to the moon and back. Because of this NM is valued enough to be still taught in schools with of the footnote that it is superseded outside of the macroscopic human realm. QM and GR are the most accurate theories in the history of science *in their domains* but fall apart when they move into each others. I guess were arguing semantics here as what you see as wrong I see as incomplete.



This may be true but it's difficult for me to accept as mathematics and logic give us the fundamental tools to tackle concepts (like infinity) that our limited primate brains cannot deal with on their own. I guess we'll never know the answer to this question.



So what are your thoughts on policy? When is a scientific theory "good enough" to teach to our children and base economic policy on?

LOL curiosity got the better of me and I had to "show hidden content" to see if I was right about whom you were wasting your time with. And yeah, trolls gonna do what trolls gonna do.

On the subject of the limits of the theoretical in terms of experimentation, I think it is very likely to be a relatively short lived problem--until the next time, at least.

Go back 5 centuries or so and ask people if they think we can ever measure the speed of light.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

My neighbor has a giant sign on the lawn that says "Science is Real".
Is anyone suggesting otherwise?
Now, can science and scientific data be manipulated, even politicized?
Of course.

Anti vaxers, anti maskers, etc are all suggesting otherwise

 

[Graves The Elder]

Sure, I get that.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

LOL curiosity got the better of me and I had to "show hidden content" to see if I was right about whom you were wasting your time with. And yeah, trolls gonna do what trolls gonna do.

On the subject of the limits of the theoretical in terms of experimentation, I think it is very likely to be a relatively short lived problem--until the next time, at least.

Go back 5 centuries or so and ask people if they think we can ever measure the speed of light.

They just measured large 40kg mirrors being moved by quantum fluctuations, pretty cool:


Observations showed that 88-pound mirrors were ‘kicked’ by the ‘spooky popcorn of the universe.’

Quantum physics is the realm of tiny particles no longer. Scientists at the giant gravitational wave detector LIGO in the US are now measuring the quantum effects of 40-kilogram mirrors used to detect gravitational waves.

While physicists routinely observe quantum effects in nanometre-scale experiments, LIGO team member Robert Ward says this new level of sensitivity was unmatched in other experiments.

“There’s nowhere else close, nothing like it. That’s as big as my kids!” says Ward, who is part of the OzGrav Research Centre based at the Australian National University (ANU).

“The reality that we can measure to this level of precision on an instrument that is so large is incredible,” adds his ANU colleague Terry McRae, who recently spent a year installing new componentry at the Livingston site in Louisiana, US.
https://www.lintelligencer.com/stud...tions-observed-moving-40-kg-mirror-4627-2020/

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I think it's interesting that whenever it comes to this kind of discussion, the response to this oft used assertion is never "Prove it."

They're holding the "proof" in their hands while they type out responses. It's completely baffling that they can still bag on science after that is pointed out.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Can someone post a link to an actual curriculum plan (or lesson plan) proving that Creationism is actually being taught in US public schools?

There is no official Creationist Lesson Plan as Creationism contains no framework, research or experiments as Creationism isn't science, they instead stray from the sanctioned lesson plan and present Creationism\ID as a valid alternative.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

LOL curiosity got the better of me and I had to "show hidden content" to see if I was right about whom you were wasting your time with. And yeah, trolls gonna do what trolls gonna do.

On the subject of the limits of the theoretical in terms of experimentation, I think it is very likely to be a relatively short lived problem--until the next time, at least.

Go back 5 centuries or so and ask people if they think we can ever measure the speed of light.

I've never seen @Hadron90 as a troll, he knows the subject matter very well believe me. As far as verifying M-Theory I've heard we'd have to build a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way to directly measure them. Hopefully we can find another way as I don't think we'll get to that level of technology anytime soon.

 

[Hadron90]

From my understanding the main reason why M-Theory and LQG have stagnated is because of the limitations of testing, both are mathematically elegant but right now there's no way to falsify either theory and we can't say that they wrong until we can 'prove' it under experimentation. Because of this limitation theoretical physics really has become detached from the realities of experimental science and has become a 'Philosophical' endeavor with mathematical frameworks. The scales are so ridiculously small I just don't know if we'll ever be able to observe a string or spin network meaningfully enough under experimentation to confirm or falsify either theory.

Also what are your thoughts on their attempts to merge their versions of the GUT with the Lambda CDM?

This is a really good video on the failings on string theories. Actually, this whole channel is really good if you are interested in theory.

I don't think this is a fair comparison as Alchemy's 'successes' (whatever those were) were purely coincidental as Alchemy did not have a predictive model like Newtonian Mechanics does. Sure NM was not accurate enough to describe the precession of the perihelion of Mercury but it can make verifiable predictions in its domain and was accurate enough to get us to the moon and back. Because of this NM is valued enough to be still taught in schools with of the footnote that it is superseded outside of the macroscopic human realm. QM and GR are the most accurate theories in the history of science *in their domains* but fall apart when they move into each others. I guess were arguing semantics here as what you see as wrong I see as incomplete.

Its not semantics. Newtonian Mechanics are wrong. You can get the right answer for the wrong reason, especially when you only care about a few decimal places, and only a small subset of problems. Buts it the wrong worldview. Newton, Einstein, and Dirac would all give you radically different pictures of the world and accompanying philosophies.

This may be true but it's difficult for me to accept as mathematics and logic give us the fundamental tools to tackle concepts (like infinity) that our limited primate brains cannot deal with on their own. I guess we'll never know the answer to this question.

And I'm obviously not telling you to abandon logic and math. It's just something to keep in mind and keep you humble. Our brains are almost identical to chimp brains. Chimps can do logic and vasic math, but will never understand calculus. We can do calculus, but why should we think there are no concepts that we can't grasp?

So what are your thoughts on policy? When is a scientific theory "good enough" to teach to our children and base economic policy on?

I don't think there is an obvious answer for that. Its also tough with economic policy, because you need to be quantitatively correct, not just generally correct. Like with global warming. Its not enough to just say the earth is warming. You need to be able to predict with accuracy the exact effect a given policy will have to determine if it makes sense from a cost-benefit standpoint.

Or on the topic of the thread: No, I don't believe creationism should be taught in schools.

 

[Andy Capp]

I've never seen @Hadron90 as a troll, he knows the subject matter very well believe me. As far as verifying M-Theory I've heard we'd have to build a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way to directly measure them. Hopefully we can find another way as I don't think we'll get to that level of technology anytime soon.

That's what their understanding tells them right now. Again, imagine the response you'd get from various people of the past if you asked how to measure the speed of light. As to the other, agree to disagree is best I think. I'm out.