christina has to find a new major ;-)

[nadine]

Evolutionary biology is no longer an approved major:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washi ... ei=5087%0A

[kbadr]

And Improv 4 Evil has to find a new Majcher

Coz the one you've got just got a little older and may break soon.

[erikamay]

in other news, the Department of Education has accidentally added the approved (and heavily funded) major of "We Aint Fuckin' Apes".

(on a serious note (and maybe i'm a conspiricist?) but this is the creep towards the revisionist history they described in 1984.)

back to pissing on myself and drinking mad dog 40/40 in the corner while the world goes to hell in a handbasket,
e

[Marc Majcher]

/me shakes his cane at you rotten kids.

GET OFFA MY LAWN!

[deroosisonfire]

i know, i read that article this morning. "whoops, it just turns out that the most controversial educational topic in the country disappeared from a list of majors that can receive federal aid. our bad. we're totally fixing it. no, right now. seriously."

but here's the good news: only those that can go to college without federal aid will be able to study evolution anymore. thank goodness. poor people have barely evolved from apes anyway . . . i'm surprised they could understand the classes.

this sort of thing is so ridiculous that i want to joke about it. but it's dangerous and should be paid attention to. those with power will go to great lengths to supress truths that come into conflict with their moral beliefs. check out the ny times article i linked to this morning about making the morning after pill availble over the counter - 3 fda directors resigned during the process because they were continually told they would have to reject the drug because of the political climate, regardless of the scientific findings as to whether or not the drug is safe.

i'm about to go off on a tirade about how science is misconstrued for political effect which i don't have the time to get into right now. instead i'll say this: if you value the educational system, reproductive rights, etc. then start paying attention. take notice of how screwed up this stuff is. and take that indignation to the polls.

this public service announcement brought to you by frustrated scientists everywhere.

[mcnichol]

those with power will go to great lengths to supress truths that come into conflict with their moral beliefs.

You know, if you had to sum up an entire administration in one sentence...

[erikamay]

instead i'll say this: if you value the educational system, reproductive rights, etc. then start paying attention. take notice of how screwed up this stuff is. and take that indignation to the polls.

hear goddamn hear!

if you arent registered to vote, make sure you start this process now, so you don't end up without a voice come november.

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/reqvr.shtml

[Jules]

-hitting head repeatedly on desk-
May, pass me the bottle please.

[ratliff]

those with power will go to great lengths to supress truths that come into conflict with their moral beliefs.

Um, not just those with power. Everyone does this. Including and especially our side of this argument.

And this needs to be said: Science doesn't have any more claim to "truths" than religion does. Luckily, in my limited understanding of scientific theory, it doesn't claim to. Instead, it presents hypotheses that are borne out by as much of the existing evidence as possible. Right?

One of the moral advantages science has over fundamentalist religion is this built-in humility. Let's not blow that.

[the_orf]

And this needs to be said: Science doesn't have any more claim to "truths" than religion does. Luckily, in my limited understanding of scientific theory, it doesn't claim to. Instead, it presents hypotheses that are borne out by as much of the existing evidence as possible. Right?

One of the moral advantages science has over fundamentalist religion is this built-in humility. Let's not blow that.

Let's take a look at the definitions, according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
SCIENCE
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

RELIGION
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Science most definitely has a higher claim on truths, because that's what science is: a search for testable, reproducible, predictable truth. Religion is a search for personal meaning or purpose, usually in terms of moral codes of human conduct, which is something that is inherently variable and unprovable.

Science deals with HOW. It does not even begin to worry about WHY.
Religions deals with WHY. The problems arise when religion starts to claim it can explain HOW as well. Because it can't.

Truth: Diamonds are harder than cheese.
This is scientifically testable, and can be reproduced by any tester, anywhere.

Religious statement: Diamonds are put on earth by god to please us, and to be made into cheese slicers.
This cannot be proved nor disproved. It invokes the supposed knowledge of the mind of a supernatural being, whose existence also cannot be proved nor disproved.

Now, when you get into scientific theories as explanations for the "how" of large-scale events (the creation/evolution of humankind, the existence of the universe), you are in the realm of things that cannot be proved--but they CAN be disproved. That's where science needs to, and usually does, stay humble. All the facts in evolutionary biology are just that: facts. It's the piecing together of those facts that makes or breaks a theory.

So far, the "controversial" theory of evolution has loads and loads of scientific facts and empirical observations supporting it, and none that disprove it. The theory of creation has exactly zero facts supporting it, and many empirical observations to the contrary.

Thus, my final conclusion is this: politicians with moral imperatives need to stay the hell away from science.

Check that. My final conclusion is this: I like beer.

I am now going to empirically test this theory and see if it holds up.


*glug*glug*glug*


Yup.


(Though I believe more testing is required.)

[ratliff]

Good point, Orf, and well made. But I wasn't using "truths" as a synonym for "facts," like that definition seems to be doing. Do you love your wife? Is that a fact? Or a truth?

I agree with you completely that "truths" that depend on a complete renunciation of physical evidence are to be sniffed at warily. But if there's one constant to the history of science, it's that appearances can be deceiving.

So yes, we've "proved" that the weight of water is constant. But ultimately that's still just a theory. It's one that has worked every single time it's been tested, so it's prudent and logical to assume it'll keep being true. But we don't KNOW it will. We can't.

By the same token, people who've had a spiritual experience extrapolate from that and make assumptions about where it came from and whether that source is an ongoing presence in their lives, as opposed to just a weird explosion of neurons. They can't know that. But if they go on that theory --that it really was a spiritual experience -- and it seems to improve their lives, they stick with it until it gets disproven. (And yes, in some cases far beyond.) It's hardly scientific method, but it's not as far removed as people imagine.

Don't you know at least one guy (it's almost always a guy) who may be technically brilliant but who thinks that the whole world should behave logically, and as a result is practically autistic when it comes to emotional relationships? These people are missing out on what for me are the most valuable and meaningful parts of life. Maybe that's just how they're hard-wired, but it some cases it really seems like they're not willing to accept any reality they can't explain. (Which always brings up the inconvenient case of gravity.)

Just because I can't subject something to the scientific method doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means I can't PROVE that it exists. Huge difference.

And yes, I agree that if I can't prove it exists, I probably shouldn't demand that it be taught as science in the schools. But I also don't think I need to be ashamed of believing something if my own experience bears it out.

[kbadr]

Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs, which are not intended to be proven or disproven. That's why they're beliefs. This whole science vs. religion debate has gotten all muddled (not here, but in society in general) because religious people have attempted to apply scientific principles in order to prove something that was never meant to be proven. You can not apply logic or scientific method to something that is, at its core, meant to be accepted as a *belief*. Nor should you try. To me, it would be like trying to prove a scientific theory using the argument "I just believe in my heart that it's true."

If as an individual, you are unable to accept a religious belief because it doesn't have any logical merit, then maybe religion isn't for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think the extreme views on both sides seem to want people to make a choice between religion (all religions) and science, and I don't really understand it. Of course, I don't have any religious beliefs that are threatended by scientific discovery, and I don't cling to any scientific fact that might get me smooted by God.

Religion and Science are two completely different beasts and the logic/feelings that apply to one just can't and shouldn't be applied to the other.

So yes, we've "proved" that the weight of water is constant. But ultimately that's still just a theory. It's one that has worked every single time it's been tested, so it's prudent and logical to assume it'll keep being true. But we don't KNOW it will. We can't.

I don't like this argument, because it doesn't actually help to disambiguate anything. If the above is true, and we're going to start playing devil's advocate with everything that is right now accepted as scientific fact, we're just reassigning the things we call "facts" to all be "theories." And then we'll just need a way to distinguish between "Theories: the things that were formerly fact and have up until now not been proven to be otherwise, but could very well change at some point." and "Theories: the things formerly known as theories which have not been proven for any extended period of time and are still under debate." It just becomes a symantic re-assigning of the word "theory."

[ratliff]

I don't know, Kareem. I will defer to the scientists among us, but my understanding of scientific theory has always been that theories are subject to change. How else could science progress? For years, scientists thought that the sun revolved around the earth. That was treated for all practical purposes like a fact, and it served the average person pretty well. Then new information proved otherwise. That's what always kills me about people saying that something is wrong or doesn't exist because science hasn't proved it: I missed the meeting where they shut down science and decided that nothing else was ever going to be learned. If I had told you 150 years ago I could send little waves through the air and make my voice heard hundreds of miles away, you would have had me locked up. But I wouldn't have been wrong.

Other than that, I agree with you completely, and as always covet your facial hair.

[the_orf]

From one such scientist, to whom you are deferring:
A theory, by scientific standards, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." This means that a theory is merely an offer of what might be an explantion. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, it must account for all current observations without exception, and ideally it should also make testable predictions about things not yet observed. Should those predictions fail to match empirical observations, the theory fails.

Such a group of explanatory propositions cannot be proven as correct; they can only be said to provide a resonable explanation for what has been observed, and thus be valid for now. Or they don't explain observed phenomena, and they are invalid forever.

This is why string theory is still having trouble gaining acceptance from anyone outside of mathematicians: it doesn't have any testable predictions. Lots of nifty equations and stuff that looks good on paper, but nothing observable.

This is also the problem science has with religion: there are no testable predictions from any religion. "The end is near!" doesn't count. Neither does "See you in hell."

(Unfortunately, string theory has practically become a religion among its proponents. I ain't saying it's wrong, but it sure make it easier for me to believe in it if there were some way to test it.)

Theories in the past have fallen. (e.g., Sun goes 'round the earth.) Theories have been validated to the point of being considered fact. (e.g., "Laws" of thermodynamics.) When a theory fails, new ones are constructed to take its place. The good ones survive, the bad ones don't.

To bring it back to the original post that started all this, the process evolution has been proven to exist. The theory of evolution makes predicitons that have been witnessed in the laboratory and in the world at large. The theory of evolution, as it applies precisely to how humans came to be as we are, still has some minor pieces missing from the story, but nothing that would even come close to invalidating it.

The point being, Christina DeRoos is a good person, regardless of what the federal government says.

These people are missing out on what for me are the most valuable and meaningful parts of life. Maybe that's just how they're hard-wired, but it some cases it really seems like they're not willing to accept any reality they can't explain. (Which always brings up the inconvenient case of gravity.)

Gravity? Don't you mean "intelligent falling"?

[deroosisonfire]

The point being, Christina DeRoos is a good person, regardless of what the federal government says.

This is clearly my new signature. Thanks, Orf.

These people are missing out on what for me are the most valuable and meaningful parts of life. Maybe that's just how they're hard-wired, but it some cases it really seems like they're not willing to accept any reality they can't explain. (Which always brings up the inconvenient case of gravity.)

In the back of Nature there are more touchy-feely papers that admit that you are a person as well as a scientist and have to worry about things like life-work balance. There was an article there this summer that I cannot find to quote exactly, but said something along the lines of: most scientists are driven by an urge to create. That (according to the author) was what motivated people to stay in academia - not prestige and certainly not money.

I mention this article because I think that maybe explaining realities is the most valuable and meaningful part of life for many scientists. Maybe scientists do not discount the parts of life that you value most, John, because they think those parts are useless - maybe those areas just do not provide the same kind of satisfaction to a scientist.