The battle for American science

The battle for American science

Creationists, pro-lifers and conservatives now pose a serious threat
to research and science teaching in the US, report Oliver Burkeman
and Alok Jha.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,933128,00.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Creationists, pro-lifers and conservatives now pose a serious threat
> to research and science teaching in the US, report Oliver Burkeman

How could they be a threat if they are all so wrong? /Ö

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Mats Öljare <oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> > Creationists, pro-lifers and conservatives now pose a serious
threat
> > to research and science teaching in the US, report Oliver Burkeman
>
> How could they be a threat if they are all so wrong? /Ö

Hi Mats. In the US, some school districts have outlawed the teaching
of evolution.

The states of Texas and California, by virtue of their large
populations, have a huge influence on the way K-12 science textbooks
are written. If Texans decide they don't care for evolution, textbook
writers and editors may leave it out, skimp, or mix it with "creation
science".

Besides these types of dangers, there is the danger that the hostility
to science exhibited by conservatives and fundamentalists will cause
money for fundamental reasearch to dry up.

John Starrett

> > > Creationists, pro-lifers and conservatives now pose a serious
> threat
> > > to research and science teaching in the US, report Oliver Burkeman
> >
> > How could they be a threat if they are all so wrong? /Ö
>
> Hi Mats. In the US, some school districts have outlawed the teaching
> of evolution.

Which is possible only because it actually just a theory and not a
proven scientific fact.

> Besides these types of dangers, there is the danger that the hostility
> to science exhibited by conservatives and fundamentalists will cause
> money for fundamental reasearch to dry up.

Maybe they aren't a threat to science, but only a threat to the
current position of the established scientific system on this issue
(leaving out the personal beliefs of many biologists).

/Ö

> > > How could they be a threat if they are all so wrong? /Ö
> >
> > Hi Mats. In the US, some school districts have outlawed the
teaching
> > of evolution.
>
> Which is possible only because it actually just a theory and not a
> proven scientific fact.

Then there are no proven scientific facts. Every explanation of the
real world is a model that fits facts to some degree. Every theory has
its shortcomings. GR doesn't fit with QM, yet these are the most
successful theories in history.

Newtonian physics is wrong at very high speeds and very small scales,
yet it is the basis for all engineering. Modern society is completely
dependent on engineering, which is based on the best theories we have.

The reason creationism is not a scientific theory is that it makes no
testable predictions, and it is not falsifiable, among its many other
shortcomings.

> > Besides these types of dangers, there is the danger that the
hostility
> > to science exhibited by conservatives and fundamentalists will
cause
> > money for fundamental reasearch to dry up.
>
> Maybe they aren't a threat to science, but only a threat to the
> current position of the established scientific system on this issue
> (leaving out the personal beliefs of many biologists).

The personal beliefs of biologists have nothing to do with science.
The current position of the scientific establishment is formed by
experiments and mathematical models that are continually being
challenged.

Science is self correcting: carreers are made by coming up with a
better theory or proving an old theory wrong. There are thousands of
the smartest people in the world trying continually to find the flaws
and improve current theory, and you can bet your boots that if one of
them succeeds, there will be thousands following him to test and try
to prove **that** theory wrong.

Science works. If anything worked better, we would use it instead.
That is just common sense.

John Starrett

> > > > How could they be a threat if they are all so wrong? /Ö
> > >
> > > Hi Mats. In the US, some school districts have outlawed the
> teaching
> > > of evolution.
> >
> > Which is possible only because it actually just a theory and not a
> > proven scientific fact.
>
> Then there are no proven scientific facts. Every explanation of the
> real world is a model that fits facts to some degree. Every theory has
> its shortcomings. GR doesn't fit with QM, yet these are the most

Gravity is an observable fact. Evolution has never been observed, nor
has anything that excludes any other possibility. If evolution is but
one of many models that can explain the state of the world, why should
it be presented as the only correct one?

> The personal beliefs of biologists have nothing to do with science.
> The current position of the scientific establishment is formed by
> experiments and mathematical models that are continually being
> challenged.

I don't think you actually KNOW any scientists if you believe that is
the real situation.

> Science works. If anything worked better, we would use it instead.

The last sentence strikes me as very ironic, coming from someone who's
been promoting the use of microtonal instruments in a world where
anything but 12TET is thought of as useless.

-Dearly, Mats

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Mats Öljare <oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> > > > > How could they be a threat if they are all so wrong? /Ö
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mats. In the US, some school districts have outlawed the
> > teaching
> > > > of evolution.
> > >
> > > Which is possible only because it actually just a theory and
not a
> > > proven scientific fact.
> >
> > Then there are no proven scientific facts. Every explanation of
the
> > real world is a model that fits facts to some degree. Every
theory has
> > its shortcomings. GR doesn't fit with QM, yet these are the most
>
> Gravity is an observable fact. Evolution has never been observed,
nor
> has anything that excludes any other possibility. If evolution is
but
> one of many models that can explain the state of the world, why
should
> it be presented as the only correct one?
>
> > The personal beliefs of biologists have nothing to do with
science.
> > The current position of the scientific establishment is formed by
> > experiments and mathematical models that are continually being
> > challenged.
>
> I don't think you actually KNOW any scientists if you believe that
is
> the real situation.
>
> > Science works. If anything worked better, we would use it
instead.
>
> The last sentence strikes me as very ironic, coming from someone
who's
> been promoting the use of microtonal instruments in a world where
> anything but 12TET is thought of as useless.
>
> -Dearly, Mats

mats, are you denying that the fittest survive to reproduce and pass
on their traits? are you denying that scientist observe the evolution
of microorganisms on a day-to-day basis?

<snip>
> Gravity is an observable fact. Evolution has never been observed,
nor
> has anything that excludes any other possibility. If evolution is
but
> one of many models that can explain the state of the world, why
should
> it be presented as the only correct one?

Evolution is observed all the time in bacteria and virii as they
develop immunity to drugs and other hazardous chemicals in their
environment. We can do this in the laboratory, under experimental
conditions. I suspect this is not what you are talking about. There is
a difference between evolution, and Darwinism, the explanation of
evolution by the process of natural selection.

> > The personal beliefs of biologists have nothing to do with
science.
> > The current position of the scientific establishment is formed by
> > experiments and mathematical models that are continually being
> > challenged.
>
> I don't think you actually KNOW any scientists if you believe that
is
> the real situation.

Actually, I am a scientist by profession. Perhaps I should clarify my
response above. I am only speaking about sciences like physics and
chemistry, really, and my statements are certainly a gross
simplification, but I believe that they are essentially correct. Sure,
scientists cling to their internal paradigms, but experiment is always
the last word. If experiment disproves your theory, you fix or discard
the theory.

My personal opinion about Darwinism is that it is not correct taken
right out of The Origin of Species, and I do take issue with those who
state that Darwinian evolution is a documented fact: it is no such
thing. The problem is that biologists have had to harden their stance
beyond reason to combat the very unscientific "creationism". It is a
pity, but the man on the street does not understand the use of
"theory" and "fact" in science.

> > Science works. If anything worked better, we would use it instead.
>
> The last sentence strikes me as very ironic, coming from someone
who's
> been promoting the use of microtonal instruments in a world where
> anything but 12TET is thought of as useless.
>
> -Dearly, Mats

Yes, that is a little odd, but in music it is more a matter of
convention than utility. We can compose and perform music that really
works in non 12tet, and the proof is in the pudding. If someone
doesn't like it, "I don't like it" is about all they can say. There
are plenty of alternatives to 12tet, and plenty of great sounding
music that **really works**. However, there are no alternatives to the
scientific method that work, to my knowledge.

John Starrett

In the plant world it is not the strongest.but those species that are more
interelated with the entire ecosystem.
In times of hardship those on top are the first to go.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

>
>
> mats, are you denying that the fittest survive to reproduce and pass
> on their traits? are you denying that scientist observe the evolution
> of microorganisms on a day-to-day basis?
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> Evolution is observed all the time in bacteria and virii as they
> develop immunity to drugs and other hazardous chemicals in their
> environment. We can do this in the laboratory, under experimental

And this proves that humans, and all other species simply came about
this way?

> My personal opinion about Darwinism is that it is not correct taken
> right out of The Origin of Species, and I do take issue with those
who
> state that Darwinian evolution is a documented fact: it is no such
> thing. The problem is that biologists have had to harden their
stance
> beyond reason to combat the very unscientific "creationism". It is
a
> pity, but the man on the street does not understand the use of
> "theory" and "fact" in science.

Still no reason that a flawed and possibly incorrect theory should
be "the one and only truth" acceptable in education and among
scientists.

> music that **really works**. However, there are no alternatives to
the
> scientific method that work, to my knowledge.

No scientific method has led to the "discovery" of evolution. It
still is nothing but an idea, a possible explanation in the heads of
writers and scientists.

/Mats

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Mats Öljare <oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> > Evolution is observed all the time in bacteria and virii as they
> > develop immunity to drugs and other hazardous chemicals in their
> > environment. We can do this in the laboratory, under experimental
>
> And this proves that humans, and all other species simply came about
> this way?

No, but it is a good indication that the same mechanism could be
responsible.

> > My personal opinion about Darwinism is that it is not correct
taken
> > right out of The Origin of Species, and I do take issue with those
> who
> > state that Darwinian evolution is a documented fact: it is no such
> > thing. The problem is that biologists have had to harden their
> stance
> > beyond reason to combat the very unscientific "creationism". It is
> a
> > pity, but the man on the street does not understand the use of
> > "theory" and "fact" in science.
>
> Still no reason that a flawed and possibly incorrect theory should
> be "the one and only truth" acceptable in education and among
> scientists.

Like I said, positions have hardened because of the insistence of the
creationists on including creationism in the curriculum. But the fact
that evolution by natural selection is flawed is certainly no reason
to introduce creationism, which has no evidence to back it up
whatsoever. At least evolution can be observed.

> > music that **really works**. However, there are no alternatives to
> the
> > scientific method that work, to my knowledge.
>
> No scientific method has led to the "discovery" of evolution.

Of course not. That is not how the scientific method operates.

> It
> still is nothing but an idea, a possible explanation in the heads of
> writers and scientists.
>
> /Mats

It is a plausible theory, with some observational evidence. There is
nothing wrong with teaching a theory as such. I agree with you (I
think) that at the elementary and high school, evolution by natural
selection is taught as a fact when it should not be, but this is more
a problem with the limited scientific background of teachers at that
level, and the problem of drawing fine distinctions between "theory"
and "fact".

Maybe the solution would be to teach a course on the scientific method
in high school and middle school, with lots of examples of science and
non science so that students could learn to distinguish the two.

John Starrett

On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:18 ,
metatuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:20:09 -0000
> From: Mats Öljare <oljare@hotmail.com>
> Re: The battle for American science
>
>
>>>> Creationists, pro-lifers and conservatives now pose a serious
>> threat
>>>> to research and science teaching in the US, report Oliver Burkeman
>>>
>>> How could they be a threat if they are all so wrong? /Ö

Oh very nice ! That suggestion is not just wrong, it is insidious.

How could Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein, Bin Laden, Mussolini,
Franco, and their minions, not to mention Islamic fundamentalist
terrorists and the Christian Inquisitions, have been/be such a
threat since we all know they are/were so very wrong.

All those _dead_ people must be just our imaginations running wild.

>> Hi Mats. In the US, some school districts have outlawed the teaching
>> of evolution.
>
> Which is possible only because it actually just a theory and not a
> proven scientific fact.

Is there some sort of course of that one can take to learn how
to twist the truth like you just did ?

It appears you do not understand what science is.

There is a wee difference between _scientific_ theory and
pie-in-the-sky-blind-faith theory.

>> Besides these types of dangers, there is the danger that the hostility
>> to science exhibited by conservatives and fundamentalists will cause
>> money for fundamental reasearch to dry up.
>
> Maybe they aren't a threat to science, but only a threat to the
> current position of the established scientific system on this issue
> (leaving out the personal beliefs of many biologists).
>
> /Ö

There's no maybe about it. It's the thin edge of the wedge.

And, there is no 'current position' in science on this or any
other issue. That is not how science works. Science is not
static.

That's a very clever sentence of yours though. Intelligently
designed. Barely ;-)

And these days one (well, liberal-secular-democratic types or
pretty much anyone other than right wing conservative Christian
types anyway) can make the most absurd paranoid claims about the
USA, and chances are you could be proven right.

Thankfully the USA is not the end all and be all of our existence.

The historic events in Athens yesterday are part of what will
come to be the driving force of progress of our civilisation for
some considerable time. Thankfully it appears it will be an
all-inclusive one, not dominated as we are now by a bullying
arrogant behemoth that can't even play nice with it's 2
neighbours.

- Joel

> From: "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: The battle for American science
>
>
> In the plant world it is not the strongest.
> but those species that are more interelated with
> the entire ecosystem.
> In times of hardship those on top are the first to go.
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > mats, are you denying that the fittest survive to
> > reproduce and pass on their traits? are you denying
> > that scientist observe the evolution of microorganisms
> > on a day-to-day basis?

Kraig:

note that paul did not say "strongest", but rather "fittest".

both animals and plants evolve together with their
environment.

if there is a particular area where a certain species
of horse congregagates to eat a plentiful supply of
its favorite grass, is it that the horses go there
*because* that grass is plentiful, or is it that that
particular grass is plentiful in that place *because*
the horses go there?

that's just one example, but every situation involving
living beings is like that, and in most cases, the answer
is: it's a bit of both.

in any case, the point you made is worth noting.

-monz