This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Belief in Evolution and science literacy.

#71OrangeWizardPosted 6/6/2014 8:08:12 PM
mrplainswalker posted...

It doesn't matter how they view it. If they view it that way, they're viewing it wrong. Science is not a series of bald assertions and saying that is it makes you wrong.


And they'd say that it doesn't matter how YOU view it, and that if you view science as "truth", you're viewing it wrong. They say that religion is not a series of bald assertions and saying that it is makes you wrong.


Do you understand my point yet?

The religious can make the same exactly claims that you make for science, that "If you don't believe it, then you must not understand." This logic is not valid.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#72SSj4WingzeroPosted 6/7/2014 10:05:33 AM
I only expect them to know about it if they're pretending to be experte enough on the subject to say that it's not true, like you did in this very topic before admitting your ignorance. I also don't expect you to know about Fourier transforms, but if you came in here and starting spouting on about how "I just don't think they're sufficient to convert signals to waveforms," I would be saying the exact same thing. That's what's so stupid about all of this. The entire country blabbering on about how Fourier transforms are totally insufficient despite barely passing high school math, and doing so with such fervor, and trying to pass legislation to prevent math teachers from teaching Fourier transforms. Let's teach the controversy! God always does the transform! Meanwhile, in the world, people who actually know the subject are using them in computer programs and whatnot, looking at all these idiots claiming that it's not true. "I understand Fourier transforms. I just don't believe they work."


Did I ever state that Evolution was true or not? All I recall saying is that you don't REALLY need background in it to believe it to be true or not true. It's a person's personal belief, and there's no use arguing about it. A person who doesn't think Fourier transforms are sufficient can go claim it's not true all he wants. It has no bearing on your life unless he, you know, tries to get in your way, but that's outside of the scope of the current discussion.

Don't you think it's important that we educate our children in subjects enough that they can understand and decide what they want to do further study on? How could you want to further educate yourself on anything about modern medicine without understanding the basis upon which it's largely built upon? The same goes for any core subject. School is not just about giving you the basic skills to survive in a modern world, it's also about providing as much information and knowledge for students to make an educated decision about what they wish to focus on (or not focus on). Most science syllabus' rightly include evolution, because it is the base mechanism on which so much of modern knowledge is built upon. And not just medicine, but engineering and computer science fields as well. I think it's critically important that people understand the basics of the topic such that they can make an informed choice to take an elective to further their understanding, or not.


I never said that teaching this stuff was or wasn't important, or should or shouldn't be taught...I just commented on the fact that it isn't really taught or focused on. And you can't be surprised that people don't remember this stuff - how much of High School chemistry does the average person remember? I took AP Physics in high school, but I'd be damned if I remember an ounce of it. Someone who wants to learn about it should get a chance to, of course, but we can't be surprised if the average high schooler doesn't remember it, nor should we magically expect them to if they opt for careers that have nothing to do with a certain field.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#73mrplainswalkerPosted 6/7/2014 7:30:08 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
And they'd say that it doesn't matter how YOU view it, and that if you view science as "truth", you're viewing it wrong. They say that religion is not a series of bald assertions and saying that it is makes you wrong.


Do you understand my point yet?


I understand the point that you're trying to make. The problem is that you're not making it. The claims of science are actually demonstrable. This makes them not bald assertions, by definition. They could say what you're saying, and it just means that they don't understand the words coming out of their own mouths.

I don't know how I can make the point any clearer. If you have one group saying that apples are apples and another group saying that apples are oranges, one group is clearly wrong. Why do we have to place them both on the same level? Who made that rule?
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#74OrangeWizardPosted 6/7/2014 7:39:46 PM
mrplainswalker posted...

I understand the point that you're trying to make. The problem is that you're not making it. The claims of science are actually demonstrable.

The claims of religion are also demonstrable. We just can't force God to demonstrate them for us.

I don't know how I can make the point any clearer. If you have one group saying that apples are apples and another group saying that apples are oranges, one group is clearly wrong. Why do we have to place them both on the same level? Who made that rule?


This sentence could be said by both groups, and each could be implying that the other is wrong.

Am I still not making my point?
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#75mrplainswalkerPosted 6/7/2014 7:57:01 PM
SSj4Wingzero posted...
Did I ever state that Evolution was true or not? All I recall saying is that you don't REALLY need background in it to believe it to be true or not true.


You don't need a background in anything to believe it or not. That's a trivial point to make. My issue is that people are trying to equate belief in a scientific theory with belief in metaphysical propositions. They aren't the same, no matter how much you want them to be.

Somebody who does not believe the theory of evolution either doesn't understand what a theory is, or doesn't understand the theory. Period. This is literally nothing but a statement about definitions. Okay, I'll admit that there's a third possibility...that they actually have demonstrable evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong and they're about to win a Nobel prize when they flip the entire field of biology on it's head. Do I even need to discuss how likely I think that is?

If you want to believe that gravity is the mechanism that angels use to hold your feet to the ground, then fine. Believe some unfalsifiable metaphysical BS. It doesn't really matter. But saying that you understand the theory of gravity while disbelieving in it, because it's actually angels...that's just plain derp. And that really is the same things as disbelieving evolution. It really is.
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#76FierceHitmanPosted 6/7/2014 8:01:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68mGbvZZZg
#77mrplainswalkerPosted 6/7/2014 8:03:52 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
The claims of religion are also demonstrable. We just can't force God to demonstrate them for us.


That's another way of saying "Not demonstrable." I'm talking about the claims being demonstrable by the people making them. You can't just say that Zeus is demonstrable because if he wanted to he could demonstrate his existence. That's just stupid.

This sentence could be said by both groups, and each could be implying that the other is wrong.

Am I still not making my point?


Your point seems to be that all truth claims are equally sound and valid for the simple fact that people can assert them. I see you making that point; it's just not a very good one.
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#78mrplainswalkerPosted 6/7/2014 8:22:12 PM
FierceHitman posted...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68mGbvZZZg


First of all, that video was awesome.

Second, I'm going to add one thing to Nietzsche's claims. Religion also doesn't give any ultimate purpose or meaning. Even if fire burns because God wills it, you will always be left with more questions. Why does God will it? That's just pushing the problem back one level. I wish people would start recognizing that as a logical fallacy...the "Swallowing the Spider" fallacy.

http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/games/songs/childrens/swallflymp3.htm
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#79OrangeWizardPosted 6/7/2014 8:42:36 PM(edited)
mrplainswalker posted...

That's another way of saying "Not demonstrable."

I don't think you want to make the absolute claim that such things are not demonstrable, because that would be an impossible burden of proof to fulfill.


Your point seems to be that all truth claims are equally sound and valid for the simple fact that people can assert them. I see you making that point; it's just not a very good one.


No. My point is that "belief follows understanding" is not always true. It's not always true when it comes to science, math, religion, demonstrable facts, or bare assertions. It's always not always true.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#80mrplainswalkerPosted 6/7/2014 8:58:24 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
I don't think you want to make the absolute claim that such things are not demonstrable, because that would be an impossible burden of proof to fulfill.


Fine, then I'll amend it and just say "not demonstrated."

No. My point is that "belief follows understanding" is not always true.


I would contend that it is. Unless you can point out a flaw in the logical chain, then you're either not understanding it or denying facts right in front of your face. If there is another alternative, please state it.
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica