Kansas moves to faith-based science

[billvon 3,096]

Recently Kansas has announced that they plan to move away from defining science as purely natural to possibly having supernatural components.

Old definition: “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

New definition: "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."

They defend this change by saying that relying purely on natural explanations might limit science to the physical world instead of the metaphysical.

This is really an exciting change, once you think about it. Kansas students will no longer be limited to purely physical explanations, based solely in reality! Pi really _could_ be 3 instead of 3.14. The earth might well be the center of the universe. AIDS could really be God's punishment for gays, and not a disease caused by the HIV virus. Prayer really could cure cancer; you could save a lot of money on breast cancer research and replace it with some women praying. All those fossils might be God's practical joke, put there to test the faith of scientists. And bacteria will no longer evolve antibiotic resistance - people who die of VRE are evil sinners who have been smitten by a vengeful God.

But in all seriousness, I grieve for the future of this country if our own version of the Taliban is successful in redefining science to include the tenets of their religion - and is also successful in forcing that view on our children.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Unf*#kingbelievable!

Flat Earth,anyone?

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[tcnelson 1]

wow, pretty strong reaction from you two don't you think?

the new definition is okay in my book. i'm not really religious but, the new definition is exactly what science is all about. i saw nothing in there that deserves the "flat-earth" treatment.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

the new definition is okay in my book.

You're joking, right???

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

the new definition is okay in my book.

You're joking, right???

It's obviously okay with the people of Kansas....which has baffled me since they first intervened in the public schools' ability to teach about evolution. I would have moved out of that state without blinking an eye after that. I suppose that this provides a foundation for that decision after-the-fact.

Teach about the supernatural in whatever spiritual-based teaching that you want. It's NOT science.

Peace~
linz

[SpeedRacer 1]

Let's keep in mind that Kansas is the Gateway to Munchkinland.

Maybe in their case they need more than science to deal with all those flying monkeys, Good Witches in pink bubbles, flying witches on bicycles, animated scarecrows & tin robots, etc.

I mean, give 'em a break.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Pi really _could_ be 3 instead of 3.14. The earth might well be the center of the universe. AIDS could really be God's punishment for gays, and not a disease caused by the HIV virus. Prayer really could cure cancer; you could save a lot of money on breast cancer research and replace it with some women praying. All those fossils might be God's practical joke, put there to test the faith of scientists. And bacteria will no longer evolve antibiotic resistance - people who die of VRE are evil sinners who have been smitten by a vengeful God.

You know, bill, these all sound like hypotheses, which is the first step of acience, right? Now, let's test them. For example, "pi" actually equals 3. I'll take a circle, measure the perimeter and measure the diameter and di some math. WOW! Pi is 3.1416. Disproven.

Now let's get to a more difficult one - the earth is the center of the universe. Well, for this we need to define the universe. Then we need to find out the border of the universe. I don't think it has been done yet, so it seems as though this one hasn't been disproved. Actually, I don't believe we know whether the universe is infinite or bounded, leading us to discuss spatial and temporal thoughts and ideas. of course, if the universe is infinite, the earth has just as good of an argument ad the sun or anything else. I understand that this is an argument from ignorance - a fallacy - but likewise is the axiomatic denial of it.

Let's try another - AIDS could really be God's punishment for gays, and not a disease caused by the HIV virus. of course, this is a complex point. It seems fairly well settled by most (with the exception of the Dr. Peter Duesberg's of the world - who is not a bible thumper) that HIV causes AIDS. What caused HIV is a fairly good question, and I'd personally love to see the Act of God hypothesis trashed.

My question is - does religion have no role in the sciences? In terms of measurement and collecting data, I would say no. But Thomas Aquinas, with his scientific method, brougth about a greater understanding of these things.

Personally, I didn't see anything prima facie wrong with the definition. I only see how it could be misused to make science. Tort lawyers will love it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Old definition: “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

New definition: "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."

Websters - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Knowledge, especially that gained through experience

Seems pretty consistent to me

Carpe Diem

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

New definition: "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."

Quote

You're joking, right???

no. like i said, what's wrong with this definition. that definition is exactly what science is all about. the fact that some people might read too far into it or, some people might make it fit their own personal views is irrelevant to my statement.

that definition of science is totally acceptable.

if those who read this think not, then please tell me why the new definition is not acceptable.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[billvon 3,096]

>I'll take a circle, measure the perimeter and measure the diameter and
>di some math. WOW! Pi is 3.1416. Disproven.

I shall use a less accurate ruler and prove that pi=3. Since it is mentioned in the bible, that's two bits of evidence against your one. And don't start in with 'accuracy is important' - you're just parroting the established secular scientific community with all their anti-bible preconceptions. Free your mind!

>AIDS could really be God's punishment for gays . . .

If you believe that (and feel it is worthwhile to apply a test to) then we must discard most disease treatments as unproven. After all, why treat an infection with antibiotics if it _could_ be a punishment from God, an affliction of Pan, the result of a pact with the devil, the Buddha's displeasure, an excess of a certain humour, an evil spirit inside one's skull, a demonic possession, or a visitation from the Shiva the destroyer? There would be insufficient time in the next decade to run the appropriate experiments to prove it is none of those things.

I suspect you would still rather treat a serious bacterial infection with antibiotics, because good science is done when only natural causes are investigated.

>does religion have no role in the sciences?

Indeed it does. A lot of societies are based on religion (the US is, to hear some people tell it) and societies do science. Indeed, a lot of our values are based on religion; thus it has a role in setting priorities (and limits) in terms of what we do with science. Stephen Gould described it thusly:

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain those facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve. Similarly, while scientists must operate with ethical principles, some specific to their practice, the validity of these principles can never be inferred from the factual discoveries of science."

That being said, we should not confuse religion with science - or either with politics. Lysenko made that mistake a while back and crippled an entire country's agriculture. Let's hope we can avoid that mistake.

[billvon 3,096]

>then please tell me why the new definition is not acceptable.

Because science is the study of natural, not supernatural, phenomena.

[SpeedRacer 1]

good quote! I mean the SJ GOuld quote. sums it up pretty good.

It basically explains why in my mind, and the mind of quite a few other Christians, there is no conflict between the book of Genesis and modern evolutionary theory.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I shall use a less accurate ruler and prove that pi=3.

Not at all. That's a statistical point related to gage repeatability and reproducibility. The best you could do is estimate that PI is (for example) 95% likely to exist in the range 3 +/- 0.25 Then ask your bosses if that's good enough or else budget for a better measuring tape.

It's big problem in design and manufacturing - lack of ability to work with natural variation and relying on bad measuring devices.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

>then please tell me why the new definition is not acceptable.

Because science is the study of natural, not supernatural, phenomena.

that's what the definition says: natural phenomena.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[andybr6 0]

I am not a religious person but is it not possible that many 'supernatural phenomena' are simply natural phenomena that science has yet to explain; by the same token could a more open minded view to scientific investigation not help 'rationalise' events that are often thought to be supernatural.

------------------------------------------------

"All men can fly, but sadly, only in one direction"

[SpeedRacer 1]

religion is not about supernatural phenomena, it is about spirituality.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[tcnelson 1]

i'll answer ya! --> yes and yes.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[billvon 3,096]

>that's what the definition says: natural phenomena.

The old definition defines science as the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. The new definition considers all sorts of causes, from natural to "Shiva the Destroyer is mad," to explain natural phenomena.

[andybr6 0]

Granted. But it is spirituality that is based on supernatural phenomena: Angels, re-incarnation, omnipotent beings, prophets. The basis of Christianity and most other religions is the belief in these things even though very few people claim to have seen them. It is faith in the existence of the supernatural that [IMHO] most religions are based on.

------------------------------------------------

"All men can fly, but sadly, only in one direction"

[wmw999 2,573]

I think the fact that they feel a need to re-evaluate the definition of science is a little scary, unless they're doing it to prevent the teaching of "creation science." Given what it's changed to, I don't think that's the case.

That said, the new definition, taken with no context, seems to allow a wider range of theorizing, but doesn't detract from the need for experimentation to test theories.

However, little in this world is context-free. Especially when we're talking about new definitions.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Bill, you and I agree on these things. It is personally against my sensibility (and logic) to say that disease is a product of God's wrath. In fact, it seems to me that the very idea is pretty Pagan. Isn't that what the Greeks and the Romans thought? Isn't that why Job, whose body and spirit were afflicted by disease, faced interrogation by his buddies who said, "We told you that the Gods get mad at you talking about your God like that."

it also seems to me that if that were the case, antibiotics are not exactly the work of the Devil.

Still, I'm surprised somewhat at you on this. Especially when you mentioned the "supernatural phenomena" when right there, in the definition, is the term "natural phenomena" as that that science hopes to explain.

On second thought, I see your point. By defining something as a natural phenomenon that others may say is "supernatural" the believers in supernatural will level the charge of heresy...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

Quote

>I shall use a less accurate ruler and prove that pi=3.

Not at all. That's a statistical point related to gage repeatability and reproducibility. The best you could do is estimate that PI is (for example) 95% likely to exist in the range 3 +/- 0.25 Then ask your bosses if that's good enough or else budget for a better measuring tape.

It's big problem in design and manufacturing - lack of ability to work with natural variation and relying on bad measuring devices.

We know around 50 billion decimal places of pi. It would have to be a very remarkable ruler to make an experimental determination.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

But spirituality is also about your personality. Who & what you love, what kind of person you are & how you relate to other people. All science could do really make empirical behavioral studies about that, or trace biochemical pathways in your brain that may be associated with these experiences and feelings. And it could get very precise & advanced about it in the future.

But science does not touch the personal realities of having feelings, thoughts, moral conflicts etc.. It can only deal with quantifiable reality. That is its realm. Similary, religion & spirituality is not supposed to be used for explaining quantifiable reality in the realm of science. Science doesn't tell you how to endure spiritual hardship during tough times, and religion doesn't tell you how to hook up your DVD player. They each have their respective roles in explaining human experience. And it doesn't matter if you're an atheist philosophically, your spiritual experiences are just as real as your experiences with the physical world. You would not be YOU without them.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JohnRich 4]

For all those that teach that the Earth was created by God, I have one question:

Who created God?

Of course, the same kind of thing can be said about the natural creation of the universe, like the Big Bang theory:

Where the hell did all that matter come from?

[Tink1717 2]

This is why you don't vote for ANYONE who is under the spell of religion. This is the second time that KansASS has done something stupid to science cirricula in deference to religion. You would have thought they would have learned.

OTOH, someone has to be the greeter at Wal Mart.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717