Thread: Texan Republicans oppose education & thinking that challenges "fixed beliefs" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028640
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
2012 Texan Republican election manifesto has been published. Under 'Educating our Children' subsection 'Knowledge-Based Education' (p.12) it reads:
quote:
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabelling of Outcome-Based Education which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
2012 Texan GOP manifesto here.

What do we make of this?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
The problem is that there is an assumption that "critical thinking" is, in practice, not as objective as it sounds. Children's impressionable minds can be led in a certain way by asking leading questions, in order to achieve a certain outcome, namely, challenging their belief in God. But "critical thinking" is a serious challenge to atheism. One reason why I am not an atheist is precisely because I regard this viewpoint as deeply irrational.

Now I am all for children being encouraged to engage in "critical thinking" if ALL viewpoints are vigorously challenged. Unfortunately that is unlikely to be the case, considering the blase assumption that "science" is the key to the discovery of truth (it is not), and that "science" is opposed to religion (nothing could be further from the truth).

So what kind of "critical thinking" are we talking about?

And do we think that encouraging children to engage in Cartesian doubt is good for their psychological well being?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Critical thinking is surely the ability to be critical about one's own thinking, to be aware of one's own cultural bias, and to make allowance for that when attempting to form our own views. I can't see that as a bad thing.
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what kind of "critical thinking" are we talking about?
Not entirely sure, but in the same section but in a preceding sub-section we find this text:
quote:
Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.
Which seems to represent critical thinking.

Does the 'knowledge based education' section undermine or directly clash with the 'Controversial Theories' section? It seems to do so.
 
Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
2012 Texan GOP manifesto here.

What do we make of this?
I admit some admiration for anyone who contrived to get paid for writing all that.

Those Texans do do things in a big way. [Help]
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
Well here's wikipedias current as of this post definition.

quote:
Critical thinking is thinking that questions assumptions.[citation needed] It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false
What do people think?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
How we define "critical thinking" depends on the tools we use, and these tools are fashioned by the epistemological theory we subscribe to. So, for some people, empiricism guides critical thinking, whereas others take a more rationalist approach.

How do we define "evidence"? Must "evidence" always be empirically testable, or can conclusions which are simply logically coherent count as evidence, even in the absence of empirical testing?

These are profound questions, which - with all due respect to children - are not going to be resolved in the classrooms of primary or secondary grade pupils. Therefore, it is inevitable that children's "critical thinking" will be guided by the assumptions of their teachers. And what if some teachers have an agenda?

So I can certainly understand the concern of those who are critical of the "critical thinking" agenda. It is not a foregone conclusion that such questioning of this educational method constitutes "opposition to thinking".
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Well here's wikipedias current as of this post definition.

quote:
Critical thinking is thinking that questions assumptions.[citation needed] It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false
What do people think?
A lot of what is taught in schools as critical thinking is, in fact, very one-sided. Moreover, it should not be taught as a separate subject, as it is in many cases. It should be part of instruction in history, science, etc. Good instruction in critical thinking should teach one to pick holes in arguments.

Moo
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
1 Thessalonians 5:21.

But the curriculum should introduce students to critical thinking in an age-appropriate manner:

1 Corinthians 13:11.

[ 28. June 2012, 12:26: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And what if some teachers have an agenda?
And in the case of religion we come yet again to the age old dispute where most atheists would say that atheism is the "neutral" position and most christians arguing that atheism is a belief.

As far as the OP goes I'm asuming here that this is mostly about having creationism taught in schools?
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
In our local schools and colleges Critical Thinking is an AS level that students can take as one of a number of extension courses in their second year of 6th form. Typically students will take 4 subjects to AS level and then drop one and take the other 3 to A2 level. Critical Thinking plugs the gap in the timetable.
My daughter did 4AS levels including Philosophy and wanted to continue them all. She was allowed to as it was considered that Philosophy would teach her the same skills as Critical Thinking and it would be good to have 4 A2 qualifications.
Therefore I have come to regard CT as Philosphy Lite. Are there overlaps?
 
Posted by testbear (# 4602) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
In our local schools and colleges Critical Thinking is an AS level that students can take as one of a number of extension courses in their second year of 6th form. Typically students will take 4 subjects to AS level and then drop one and take the other 3 to A2 level. Critical Thinking plugs the gap in the timetable.
My daughter did 4AS levels including Philosophy and wanted to continue them all. She was allowed to as it was considered that Philosophy would teach her the same skills as Critical Thinking and it would be good to have 4 A2 qualifications.
Therefore I have come to regard CT as Philosphy Lite. Are there overlaps?
A significant module of my first year undergraduate degree in Philosophy was on Critical Thinking, Logic and Fallacies. This focused purely on what constituted a valid argument, a sound argument and a variety of common (and not-so-common) logical arguments that appear valid at first glance but are logically fundamentally flawed. So, maybe not "Philosophy Lite", more like "Philosophy: Ground Rules".

How you choose to apply those ground rules, of course, is down to you...and it's the application of these ground rules by various thinkers to various questions that results in the diversity of philosophical positions displayed throughout the subject.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And what if some teachers have an agenda?
And in the case of religion we come yet again to the age old dispute where most atheists would say that atheism is the "neutral" position and most christians arguing that atheism is a belief.

As far as the OP goes I'm asuming here that this is mostly about having creationism taught in schools?
Actually, it's more than that. The phrase "Higher Order Thinking Skills" is a clue that the target is something called
"Bloom's Taxonomy," which forms the basis of much work on school and university curricula. The "higher order thinking skills" are analysis, synthesis, and evaluation/creation. (The very top level of the taxonomy has undergone revision several times.)

"Critical thinking" is needed if students are to analyze and synthesize effectively. A student engaging in critical thinking is aware of the background and context of claims and statements in source and textbook material, and is able to detect possible bias and attempts at manipulation in sources.

In its full form, critical thinking is the ability to balance competing sources of information and make good decisions under conditions of less than perfect information. In short, fully developed critical thinking is more or less synonymous with good judgment or "practical wisdom," Aristotle's phronesis. Like all the Aristotelian virtues, it is a disposition, a character trait, that is developed slowly over years of training and education.

For some reason the American right wing has been taking up against Bloom's Taxonomy for quite a while now. I really don't understand why, though I do have some very dark thoughts about it all.
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
I had a friend send this to me and as a teacher in Texas, I was amused.

Especially since I just did a complete renewal of my Gifted and Talented Training which included a review of Texas Educational Law. By law, I am required to teach G/T students (and others) higher level thinking skills (aka Bloom).

What is specifically is against is a program called HOTS which suggests that if a student is behind in the basics, what they need is to learn higher order thinking skills, instead of being retaught the basic skills they don't have. I have no idea about the program so I'll leave that one alone.

Outcome Based Education (OBE) is another program that is floated around that puts each individual student on their own learning pace. Teachers themselves usually stop that because they just can't do the work needed to keep up. However, with more and more education being put on computers, it becomes more possible. In poking around, apparently there is one school district interested in starting a program like that and wants to apply for money from the federal government to try it out. Something the state government is against. (You know Obama - bad, Perry - good)
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

Outcome Based Education (OBE) is another program that is floated around that puts each individual student on their own learning pace. Teachers themselves usually stop that because they just can't do the work needed to keep up. However, with more and more education being put on computers, it becomes more possible. In poking around, apparently there is one school district interested in starting a program like that and wants to apply for money from the federal government to try it out. Something the state government is against. (You know Obama - bad, Perry - good)
Thanks for this. I recognize it now.
Bill Gates has been touting a computerized version lately for college courses:

quote:
Gates said that colleges should also adopt adaptive learning technologies, which can track student progress and tailor course material for individual students, to make college more manageable for a diverse set of learners. He said many of these initiatives remain in the pilot stage, and institutions are still figuring out how to use them. The Gates Foundation recently announced several grants it will award, including one to a new online college that will incorporate adaptive learning techniques into its teaching.
I too am fairly jaded with this kind of thing. Some such initiative-that-will-solve-all-problems seems to come around every few years. It spawns a few highly publicized boutique programs that have spectacular results. But it's labor-intensive, it doesn't scale up, and after it wastes time, money, and teacher effort that all could have been much better used, it's quietly abandoned -- until the next time.

This latest version would sell a lot of Microsoft product, though, and Bill Gates does have Arne Duncan's ear.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As far as the OP goes I'm asuming here that this is mostly about having creationism taught in schools?
Largely, though "climate change is a giant conspiracy" is an up-and-comer in the area of jiggering curricula.
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
What I find most disturbing about this policy is the end of the quote:
quote:
We oppose the teaching... [that has] the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Which seems to say that the children of Texas should not be educated in ideas or thinking skills that would lead them to challenge their inherited faith or undermine the beliefs and ideas their parents teach them.

It sounds very Orwellian - that the State of Texas should act as the thought police, ensuring the conservative consensus is not challenged by the free exploration of thought or ideology.

It's frightening that a modern western state should feel so threatened by freedom of thought or belief that it should have such a policy.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
What I find most disturbing about this policy is the end of the quote:
quote:
We oppose the teaching... [that has] the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Which seems to say that the children of Texas should not be educated in ideas or thinking skills that would lead them to challenge their inherited faith or undermine the beliefs and ideas their parents teach them.
Good teachers will also undermine their own authority, in the sense that they won;t tell the students that whatever the teacher tells them is alway right (nor taht whatever the textbook says is always right), they will encourage them to check sources, and they would praise a student who finds evidence or a good argument that contradicts something the teacher or the textbook said, rather than telling them to shut up and do as they are told.

You can't do that without also at least implying tht parents might also be wrong.

Going by that criterion my primary school and the first years of my secondary school had a mixture of good and bad teachers, but the sixth form (roughly equivalent to US senior high school yers) and university had only good teachers. But then I was only studying science at that level, and teaching science neccessarily involves teaching that kind of evidence-based reflective or self-critical thinking. It is as much about questions like Why do we believe this to be true? How reliable is our knowledge? Hoiw likely is it that we might be wrong? How did we come to know it? Can we use those same methods to learn things we don't already know? as it is about the content of what is known.

Maybe that's one reason conservatives don't like science. You can't do science without being able to challenge authority.
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
What Ken said.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev
It sounds very Orwellian - that the State of Texas should act as the thought police, ensuring the conservative consensus is not challenged by the free exploration of thought or ideology.

It's frightening that a modern western state should feel so threatened by freedom of thought or belief that it should have such a policy.
Yes, it is frightening, but it's not just the religious conservatives who are trying to stifle critical thinking. There seems to be a paranoia on the part of some to allow students to consider a perfectly logical theory about the origin of life, namely the idea that there is a causal connection between intelligence and complexity (which is hardly anti-thought, is it?!).

Perhaps if the liberal intelligentsia were to practise what they preach, then you might find that conservatives would be a bit more reasonable.
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
What Santos said.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
OK. So critical thinking is banned if children come to the "wrong" conclusion.

The spirit of 1984, not 1776, methinks.
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
The distinction Santos makes is where the teaching crosses the threshold between science and theology. Is it appropriate to teach theology in a science class?

Unless intelligent design theory has a scientific basis, I struggle to see how you can reasonably include it in a science curriculum.

PS: I love your signature, EtymologicalEvangelical!
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
All the scientific method can say is "we don't know" when it concerns events that are, by their very nature, unobservable, being locked in the distant past. However, science does allow for inference based on observed data. For example, the SETI project is based on the view that we can receive information which is of a certain nature by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings (in this case, alien life), without, of course, having direct observational evidence of such beings. This shows that the inference of intelligent agency is definitely part of the scientific method.

So while the inference of the God of a certain religion may lie outside the scientific method (though not outside the function of logic), it does not follow that the idea of "an intelligent creator" should have the same restricted status.
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lev
[b]Yes, it is frightening, but it's not just the religious conservatives who are trying to stifle critical thinking. There seems to be a paranoia on the part of some to allow students to consider a perfectly logical theory about the origin of life, namely the idea that there is a causal connection between intelligence and complexity (which is hardly anti-thought, is it?!).

Perhaps if the liberal intelligentsia were to practise what they preach, then you might find that conservatives would be a bit more reasonable.
Oh bullshit. There is nothing scientific about intelligent design "theory." It's nothing but cherry-picked facts designed to make children distrust scientists and protect Christian fundamentalism.

Students are "allowed" to ponder whatever ideas they please. There's a time and place to TEACH intelligent design, and it's not at government schools during biology.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All the scientific method can say is "we don't know" when it concerns events that are, by their very nature, unobservable, being locked in the distant past. However, science does allow for inference based on observed data. For example, the SETI project is based on the view that we can receive information which is of a certain nature by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings (in this case, alien life), without, of course, having direct observational evidence of such beings.
Hold on just a second! Aren't most astronomical observations, including the ones made by SETI, "locked in the distant past"? Observing a galaxy 2.5 million light years away means seeing it as it existed 2.5 million years ago.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Aren't most astronomical observations, including the ones made by SETI, "locked in the distant past"? Observing a galaxy 2.5 million light years away means seeing it as it existed 2.5 million years ago.
So you believe that we can have direct observational evidence of the origin of life? Which is what I was actually talking about.

As for SETI - I was making a point about the inference of intelligent agency being part of the scientific method. Are we seriously to believe that this project is based on a nonsense, because it is a foregone conclusion that we could never infer the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence unless we observed that intelligence directly? So why bother trying to scour the heavens for signals of such life?

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingdale
Oh bullshit...
Another one who doesn't believe in critical thinking. If you did, you would make the effort to put a coherent argument instead of resorting to an emotional outburst.
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
However, science does allow for inference based on observed data. For example, the SETI project is based on the view that we can receive information which is of a certain nature by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings (in this case, alien life), without, of course, having direct observational evidence of such beings. This shows that the inference of intelligent agency is definitely part of the scientific method.
I think the SETI example is a little muddled, as it's a project that is looking for signs of intelligent alien life, rather than used as a basis for teaching children a theory that alien life does exist*.

I'm not sure how you can argue because we're looking for intelligent alien life, that means we can teach a theory that intelligent alien life does exist in a science class.

A better example would be to show how many exo planets have been discovered, demonstrate how the theories of planetary formation appear to be confirmed by these discoveries and use statistical models to show the likelihood of how many stars in the observable universe are likely to have planets.

You could then make an educated estimate of how many planets are likely to be in orbits which have habitable conditions for life. Beyond that, we cannot say for certain that life, or intelligent life for that matter, does exist outside our solar system.

Personally, I believe intelligent alien life does exist. I also believe that God exists and was involved in the process of creating the universe and life on this planet.

However, I'm not keen to teach that in a science class as the God bit is theological and the alien life bit is my own guess based on statistics I've seen.

*: However, in 1977 a signal was picked up by SETI which hasn't yet been explained. The strongest theory is that it was in fact a signal sent from a star system that we received, but as yet we haven't been able to prove this is so due to not being able to pick up the signal again. More here.
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingdale
Oh bullshit...
Another one who doesn't believe in critical thinking. If you did, you would make the effort to put a coherent argument instead of resorting to an emotional outburst.
Are you incapable of responding to the rest of my post that you clipped out? Is that why you clipped it?

[ 28. June 2012, 17:27: Message edited by: Mockingale ]
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingdale
Oh bullshit...
Another one who doesn't believe in critical thinking. If you did, you would make the effort to put a coherent argument instead of resorting to an emotional outburst.
Are you incapable of responding to the rest of my post that you clipped out? Is that why you clipped it?
I think EtymologicalEvangelical is justified in ignoring the rest of your views if you use such derogatory language over his.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All the scientific method can say is "we don't know" when it concerns events that are, by their very nature, unobservable, being locked in the distant past.
Have you heard of this crazy thing kids are doing these days called "geology"?
quote:
For example, the SETI project is based on the view that we can receive information which is of a certain nature by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings ... So while the inference of the God of a certain religion may lie outside the scientific method (though not outside the function of logic), it does not follow that the idea of "an intelligent creator" should have the same restricted status.
Fine. A chimpanzee throwing feces at me from behind a rock is also an intelligent agent. Obviously, *something* tossed that crap at me even though I didn't see it. Oh, but by the time I feel it, it's already happened and I can't possibly know anything about something that happened in the past. And this definition of an "intelligent creator" is so broad that it can include both God and a crow snapping a twig in half. I think I need to critically lie down now. OliviaG
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingdale
Oh bullshit...
Another one who doesn't believe in critical thinking. If you did, you would make the effort to put a coherent argument instead of resorting to an emotional outburst.
Are you incapable of responding to the rest of my post that you clipped out? Is that why you clipped it?
I think EtymologicalEvangelical is justified in ignoring the rest of your views if you use such derogatory language over his.
He didn't ignore it. He was dishonest.

Fine, EE. Replace "Bullshit" with "nonsense" and respond to the question, if you'd please. I'm sorry to offend your ancient church lady sensibilities.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Aren't most astronomical observations, including the ones made by SETI, "locked in the distant past"? Observing a galaxy 2.5 million light years away means seeing it as it existed 2.5 million years ago.
So you believe that we can have direct observational evidence of the origin of life? Which is what I was actually talking about.
I thought you were talking about the search for intelligence. That's not the same thing as life.

You do seem to have perfected the same paranoid notion that all of science (and perhaps learning generally) is a massive conspiracy by the "liberal intelligentsia" to suppress the real truth about [your particular] God that seems to be driving the platform drafting commttee of the Texas Republican party.

The problem with such theories is that they implicitly posit that the conspiracy knows the truth but deliberately chooses to suppress it for motives that are both nefarious and vague. So, what exactly is the "liberal intelligentsia" supposed to gain by the massive effort needed to maintain this fraud?
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, what exactly is the "liberal intelligentsia" supposed to gain by the massive effort needed to maintain this fraud?
Isn't perfectly obvious? They're in league with Satan, the Freemasons, and companies that sell funny pictures of chimpanzees.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem with such theories is that they implicitly posit that the conspiracy knows the truth but deliberately chooses to suppress it for motives that are both nefarious and vague. So, what exactly is the "liberal intelligentsia" supposed to gain by the massive effort needed to maintain this fraud?
Dang, boy, yew don't know nuthin', do ya? Every right-thinkin' 'mercun knows that libruls are after our guns, our pick-ups, and our wimmin.

--Tom Clune

[Edited fur spellun]

[ 28. June 2012, 17:40: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
Whilst I disagree with EtymologicalEvangelical over his* views on education, his criticism of liberal intelligentsia is profoundly made with the disrespectful and condescending tone taken to mock his views on this.

*Apologies if I've wrongly assumed EtymologicalEvangelical is a male.
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Whilst I disagree with EtymologicalEvangelical over his* views on education, his criticism of liberal intelligentsia is profoundly made with the disrespectful and condescending tone taken to mock his views on this.

*Apologies if I've wrongly assumed EtymologicalEvangelical is a male.
Rather than respond to a criticism, it whined about the word "bullshit." You don't act like a smug coward and then "win" because someone is mean to you.

What a world we live in where intelligence and knowledge can be considered derogatory traits.

[ 28. June 2012, 18:02: Message edited by: Mockingale ]
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Whilst I disagree with EtymologicalEvangelical over his* views on education, his criticism of liberal intelligentsia is profoundly made with the disrespectful and condescending tone taken to mock his views on this.

*Apologies if I've wrongly assumed EtymologicalEvangelical is a male.
Rather than respond to a criticism, it whined about the word "bullshit." You don't act like a smug coward and then "win" because someone is mean to you.

What a world we live in where intelligence and knowledge can be considered derogatory traits.
I think you're guilty of Argumentum ad hominem ("ancient church lady sensibilities", "smug coward", etc) and that is probably the main stumbling block from getting a response.
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Whilst I disagree with EtymologicalEvangelical over his* views on education, his criticism of liberal intelligentsia is profoundly made with the disrespectful and condescending tone taken to mock his views on this.

*Apologies if I've wrongly assumed EtymologicalEvangelical is a male.
Rather than respond to a criticism, it whined about the word "bullshit." You don't act like a smug coward and then "win" because someone is mean to you.

What a world we live in where intelligence and knowledge can be considered derogatory traits.
I think you're guilty of Argumentum ad hominem ("ancient church lady sensibilities", "smug coward", etc) and that is probably the main stumbling block from getting a response.
I'm not going to argue with you. I don't know why you're defending it, but this is a waste of my time.

[ 28. June 2012, 18:34: Message edited by: Mockingale ]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev
I think the SETI example is a little muddled, as it's a project that is looking for signs of intelligent alien life, rather than used as a basis for teaching children a theory that alien life does exist*.

I'm not sure how you can argue because we're looking for intelligent alien life, that means we can teach a theory that intelligent alien life does exist in a science class.
No, my example is not muddled, because I was making a point about the scope of the scientific method. Does the scientific method allow for the inference of unobserved intelligent agency? The SETI project confirms that it does, because its premise is the possibility that we can detect information coming from the cosmos by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings - but without having direct observation of those beings.

But one of the objections to intelligent design is the claim that it lies outside the scope of the scientific method, because we cannot observe this designer or his creative work in action. But we do not need to. We can infer the existence of such a designer from what we can observe.

Now I am fully aware that some may argue that the observed data does not necessarily imply a designer. But that is not the point. The point I am making is whether it is legitimate within the scope of the scientific method to make any such inference at all.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
EE, if you want to argue ID, take it to DH.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune
EE, if you want to argue ID, take it to DH.
Fair enough. I was actually arguing about the scope of the scientific method, which is part of "critical thinking".

Anyway, enough of this. I'm off to watch the footie...
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Lev
I think the SETI example is a little muddled, as it's a project that is looking for signs of intelligent alien life, rather than used as a basis for teaching children a theory that alien life does exist*.

I'm not sure how you can argue because we're looking for intelligent alien life, that means we can teach a theory that intelligent alien life does exist in a science class.
No, my example is not muddled, because I was making a point about the scope of the scientific method. Does the scientific method allow for the inference of unobserved intelligent agency? The SETI project confirms that it does, because its premise is the possibility that we can detect information coming from the cosmos by which we can infer the existence of intelligent beings - but without having direct observation of those beings.

But one of the objections to intelligent design is the claim that it lies outside the scope of the scientific method, because we cannot observe this designer or his creative work in action. But we do not need to. We can infer the existence of such a designer from what we can observe.

Now I am fully aware that some may argue that the observed data does not necessarily imply a designer. But that is not the point. The point I am making is whether it is legitimate within the scope of the scientific method to make any such inference at all.
SETI is not scientific in the sense that it is trying to explain or predict some natural phenomenon, any more that tuning a shortwave radio dial to find broadcasts from a direction on earth is scientific. We are primed to recognize patterns and can distinguish communication from another person from background or random noise.

"Intelligent design" is not related, and it's not science. It attempts to disprove or question a widely accepted scientific theory that has been corroborated by volumes of observed and peer-reviewed data by saying "Well, we can't explain every single mechanism of this phenomenon yet, so it must be God, because the eye is really complex and we don't yet have a consensus on how all of its features would have adapted."

That's no more valid as a scientific inquiry than if Newton had said "Well, I have no idea the exact mechanism of gravitational forces on a subatomic level, so it must be the result of direct divine agency, because I don't have a model for gravitational force and it seems providential that we'd have some force pulling us to the ground."
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
EE, if you want to argue ID, take it to DH.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Sorry, cross-posted. I'll stop.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But one of the objections to intelligent design is the claim that it lies outside the scope of the scientific method, because we cannot observe this designer or his creative work in action. But we do not need to. We can infer the existence of such a designer from what we can observe.
I've never heard anyone object to intelligent design in those terms. Such arguments are usually constructed by cdesign proponentsists as straw man objections. The main objection isn't that the purported Designer can't be observed, but rather that it isn't observed.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Croesos, perhaps you think that a prohibition addressed to EE doesn't apply to you. It does. If you just can't help yourself, take your discussion of ID to the Dead Horses board. It is not allowed here.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
That's no more valid as a scientific inquiry than if Newton had said "Well, I have no idea the exact mechanism of gravitational forces on a subatomic level, so it must be the result of direct divine agency, because I don't have a model for gravitational force and it seems providential that we'd have some force pulling us to the ground."
Which is pretty much what he did say, for what it's worth.
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
That's no more valid as a scientific inquiry than if Newton had said "Well, I have no idea the exact mechanism of gravitational forces on a subatomic level, so it must be the result of direct divine agency, because I don't have a model for gravitational force and it seems providential that we'd have some force pulling us to the ground."
Which is pretty much what he did say, for what it's worth.
Intelligent falling!
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
because I was making a point about the scope of the scientific method. Does the scientific method allow for the inference of unobserved intelligent agency?
The scientific method allows for making a theory and then trying to prove or disprove that theory. It does not suggest the teaching of that theory until it has been put to the test.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Or at least, it doesn't support "Let's all gather 'round this theory, it's so shiny and pretty and ties up all our grandiose loose ends with a lacework of evidence, and strikes another blow at the idea that an actual Divine Being might give a flyin' flip about us... And we'll sort of declare the theory is Fact."
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
because I was making a point about the scope of the scientific method. Does the scientific method allow for the inference of unobserved intelligent agency?
The scientific method allows for making a theory and then trying to prove or disprove that theory. It does not suggest the teaching of that theory until it has been put to the test.
I would just add that SETI is to science as Hostess Twinkies is to nutritious food. If you have to go there to find any legitimacy for your views, you're already in deep doo-doo.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Or at least, it doesn't support "Let's all gather 'round this theory, it's so shiny and pretty and ties up all our grandiose loose ends with a lacework of evidence, and strikes another blow at the idea that an actual Divine Being might give a flyin' flip about us... And we'll sort of declare the theory is Fact."
Oh boy...
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
The reason we don't teach so-called "Intelligent Design" in school and university is nothing to do with the "scientific method" (whatever that is), its because its a load of bollocks being pushed by con-artists. There is no "there" there. Its empty. When you look at it there is nothing to talk about. Its snake-oil, flim-flam, a fraud, a lie.

Asking science teachers to teach it to students would be like asking bankers to hire con-men, fraudsters, and thieves to manage their foreign exchange deals.

Oh wait...
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I have no problem with the teaching of intelligent design in school, but do it in a philosophy or comparative religion class along with the creation assertions of all the other major world religions. If it was done there I suspect there would be little controversy.

But I'm sure that the Texas Republicans are as opposed to the equal and impartial teaching of creation stories and doctrines of non-Biblical religions (viz., Buddhism, Hinduism, Maya religion, Scientology, Aboriginal and indigenous religions, etc.) as they are with evolution.

All this seems to be (along with school-led prayers) is a nose in the tent toward the indoctrination of (fundamentalist) Christianity to non-believers.

[ 29. June 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
So much for the ID Dead Horses rule.

Hey ho...
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Right. Let's send this thread where it rightfully belongs...

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

So I can certainly understand the concern of those who are critical of the "critical thinking" agenda. It is not a foregone conclusion that such questioning of this educational method constitutes "opposition to thinking".
But for those of us who employ such skills on a regular basis it certainly does look that way.

I work for a high-technology company, and we just expanded our operations in Texas. Lack of critical thinking skills is one of the biggest problems that I see in job applicants, even those with an Engineering degree.

For example: I take three measurements (A, B and C) on a few million parts, and my model of device behavior predicts that C = A + B. What if they don't? Then I have to question one (or more) of my measurements, my model, or some combination thereof. (And, of course, whether the data are labeled properly and many potential sources of error.)

That's a fairly simple situation, but we encounter ones like it every day, and I've seen people totally stumped by it: they are totally helpless because they look at the "facts" presented without questioning them. Meanwhile the rest of us are busy questioning everything, trying to understand the results and making sure they are correct.

If you can't question the facts, models, theories, etc. presented to you, you aren't going to be successful in such an industry. I often go back and reconfirm my measurements even if they look right in the first place, just out of habit.


The process of questioning assumptions, models, data, etc. is what is important here, rather that whether it involves questioning a particular source or theory. Once that process is learned, everything is open to question. That's as it should be.


The only reason I can see for NOT supporting the teaching of Critical Thinking is because your models and theories won't withstand such scrutiny. Which is why it makes perfect sense in the Texas Republican manifesto.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Which is why it makes perfect sense in the Texas Republican manifesto.
Not only for Texas Republicans, but in a growing number of aspects of American life, it seems.

To turn away from students for a moment, teachers in America are subject to the same my-way-or-the-highway attitudes. Any teacher who wants to "climb the ladder" to higher positions in administration, research, or district leadership needs only to do the following: loudly do everything that the principal wants, jump through every hoop, and put down those who don't.

The educational world is at war with tenured teachers because they are the ones don't necessarily jump through these ridiculous hoops out of fear for their jobs. They are the ones who are able to think critically with the [often misguided] hope that their association will assist them if need be.

What do you do with experienced teachers who question the value of constant standardized testing, who call states to task when the tests are blatantly and obviously invalid, who question the amount of time wasted, who know better than to stake their jobs on tests that have been hastily thrown together by for-profit enterprises without the consultative services of psychometricians, and without the benefit of common learning standards, which are almost invariably written after the fact and too late to affect instruction? You figure out how to dismiss them easier!

This is what America seems to be coming to nowadays: LOUDLY proclaiming the position of one's Camp, whether it is right or wrong.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
Conservatives have always been ambivalent about education for the masses--while it does lead to the dissemination of useful knowledge, which can be profitable, it also has the unfortunate side-effect of producing people who question Received Wisdom™. This risk is minimized by limiting education to those whose self interest is vested in the current social order, but if the lower orders were to start thinking critically, it could only result in chaos...
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Conservatives have always been ambivalent about education for the masses--while it does lead to the dissemination of useful knowledge, which can be profitable, it also has the unfortunate side-effect of producing people who question Received Wisdom™. This risk is minimized by limiting education to those whose self interest is vested in the current social order, but if the lower orders were to start thinking critically, it could only result in chaos...
My thoughts exactly TtO. What I don't understand is how certain conservatives get to a point where they fear education.

You say that the fear is based on expected chaos, and this seems to ring true with the Texan GOP as they mention it leads to "undermining parental authority" - but in practical terms I don't understand how properly educated children would automatically led to a mass rebellion against parents, and produce the chaos they fear.

I would expect a far more chaotic scene if children where kept under strict parental discipline for much of their childhood, as they are far more likely to enter a period of profound social rebel as they enter adulthood and taste the freedom they have been denied for most of their lives.

If you were to educated your children and let them discover life for themselves, if you were to encourage your children to grow in self confidence from an early age, testing arguments and theory with critical thinking and sound methods of deducing fact from fiction and morality from immorality based on multiple view points, then I could only foresee well adjusted children entering adulthood without any need to rebel against any constrained social order that has artificially caged them.

If children are educated to this standard, instead of rebelling against their parents, I could foresee them cherishing their parents as models of enlightened and responsible adults who they would wish to replicate themselves.

Or am I missing something obvious?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by carex
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So I can certainly understand the concern of those who are critical of the "critical thinking" agenda. It is not a foregone conclusion that such questioning of this educational method constitutes "opposition to thinking".
If you can't question the facts, models, theories, etc. presented to you, you aren't going to be successful in such an industry. I often go back and reconfirm my measurements even if they look right in the first place, just out of habit.

The process of questioning assumptions, models, data, etc. is what is important here, rather that whether it involves questioning a particular source or theory. Once that process is learned, everything is open to question. That's as it should be.

The only reason I can see for NOT supporting the teaching of Critical Thinking is because your models and theories won't withstand such scrutiny. Which is why it makes perfect sense in the Texas Republican manifesto.
With all due respect, I think you have taken my words out of context. If you refer back to the original post from which you drew the quote, you will see that I am actually advocating a much deeper level of "critical thinking" than is often associated with the idea. We should not stop at simply empirically or mathematically testing models and theories but also apply severe logical discipline to epistemological theories.

In other words, we should think critically about the notion of "critical thinking". By saying that I am, of course, affirming "critical thinking", but we should not settle for untested epistemological assumptions. No theory - no matter how deeply entrenched or established - should ever be considered beyond questioning, and children should be encouraged to question any theory - even those which are fallaciously promoted as "fact".

And we should not just think about our theories, but also the coherence of the philosophical presuppositions that undergird the justification for those theories.

I am all for "critical thinking". The problem is that many of those who are critical of the Republican stance are also unwilling to expose their theories to rigorous critical thinking. For example, on another blog I questioned an atheist's epistemological methodology and none of my arguments were addressed. They were simply dismissed as "pseudo-philosophy" - in other words, "don't you dare question my viewpoint". That attitude stinks, quite frankly. And it is typical of many other responses I have had from that quarter.

And it is for that reason, that I made the comment which you quoted.

If we are going to think critically, then let us not chicken out of going the whole hog and laying bare our epistemological assumptions.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:

I would expect a far more chaotic scene if children where kept under strict parental discipline for much of their childhood, as they are far more likely to enter a period of profound social rebel as they enter adulthood and taste the freedom they have been denied for most of their lives.
Yes - I agree. This has certainly happened with my circle of friends. All our children are now grown up and in their 20s. The two couples who kept their children under the strictest control had the biggest problems with them as teenagers, by far. In fact those difficulties are on-going.

We gave ours boundaries - but never told them what to think. I am very proud to have two happy, well adjusted atheist sons.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
What I don't understand is how certain conservatives get to a point where they fear education.
It's possible (though it's an unpalatable thought) that the opposition is a grass-roots opposition. I am thinking of people like those Carex mentioned in his post. They live in Florida, too. Entire rural subcultures can be like this. These are people who are not able to think critically or use higher-order thinking skills, and who fear them precisely because they don't know what these skills are, nor how, exactly, they are betraying to other people their failure to master and use them.

I have in mind people -- even whole cultures -- who are pretty well stuck in what used to be called the stage of concrete thinking. They can't really think abstractly, but that never used to be a problem. Concrete thinking used to serve them well enough; they just learned their routines and followed them. They would happily have gone on doing so forever, except that nowadays things keep changing so fast.

When problems in critical thinking are presented to them, they can't even figure out what it is they are supposed to doing, what the problem means.

But lack of this mysterious skill is going to doom them to low-wage, unstable, menial employment.

Now that's a recipe for pain, fear, and paranoia right there. If some canny Republican electoral strategists take advantage of it, who can be surprised?

Carex wrote:

quote:
I work for a high-technology company, and we just expanded our operations in Texas. Lack of critical thinking skills is one of the biggest problems that I see in job applicants, even those with an Engineering degree.

For example: I take three measurements (A, B and C) on a few million parts, and my model of device behavior predicts that C = A + B. What if they don't? Then I have to question one (or more) of my measurements, my model, or some combination thereof. (And, of course, whether the data are labeled properly and many potential sources of error.)

That's a fairly simple situation, but we encounter ones like it every day, and I've seen people totally stumped by it: they are totally helpless because they look at the "facts" presented without questioning them.

 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
Thanks Grammatica - that's a very helpful insight.

Question to DH host - as this thread has returned to topic ever since it was moved here (I can't see where anyone has debated ID since), would it qualify for moving back to Purgatory?

Seems like an odd phenomena - in Purgatory it slipped into a Dead Horse debate, but in Dead Horses it has slipped back into a Purgatory debate! Is there a name for this, I wonder?

Cheers,

...Lev
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In other words, we should think critically about the notion of "critical thinking". By saying that I am, of course, affirming "critical thinking", but we should not settle for untested epistemological assumptions.
I see "critical thinking" as a tool to learn. One can then apply it to many things. Exploring the underlying epistemological assumptions isn't actually questioning the process, but looking at how we can apply it further.

Not everybody is going to take it that far, however. Not because they have something to hide, but because it isn't necessary to solve the problems they are faced with.

I'm an engineer. Of all the people I work with, nobody has ever mentioned their epistemological assumptions regarding the behavior of a few microns of metal on top of an epitaxial layer of silicon. Most of them would have to look up "epistemology" if asked about it. That doesn't keep them from applying "critical thinking" on a daily basis.

Your argument might be more germane, of course, when you get into issues of morals or ethics. There may be legitimate questions about the underlying assumptions of our world views. But that is a very small corner of the world to which "critical thinking" is applied: that's the realm of Philosophy, and to an engineer it is a spare-time activity, or one engaged in by those who don't have to do real work for a living.


So questioning the value of teaching "critical thinking" just because someone might not properly question the source of their moral judgements is rather like refusing to let students use computers because they might apply pivot tables the wrong way in an EXCEL spreadsheet: any potential issue is so small in relation to the value of the tool for everything else that one can reasonably question the basis of the objection.


quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
For example, on another blog I questioned an atheist's epistemological methodology and none of my arguments were addressed...
Are you referring to this thread? If so, I'm sure your logical analysis of the blatant straw man argument in opening post would give a pretty good hint at why nobody on the thread has taken your questions seriously, and those who might be interested in exploring such questions would avoid the thread in the first place.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
A couple of things. First, I think some of this is the desire to pay less for things that are not for personal gain. For example if you do not have children or send your children to a private school why should you care about public schools. In Texas there are republican congressmen that seem to be in favor of private school education over public school education.

Second, I have been reading Polya's book How to Solve It and have came to the conclusion that all teachers should read the book and take note of the fourth principle (review and extend).
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
Rugasaw - as a Texan, could you tell us if this is receiving much media attention there? Has Jon Stewart picked it up yet? If your friends and neighbours became aware of this, do you think it would alter their attitudes to the Texan GOP?

I assume the republicans pretty much control everything in Texas? I heard that the electoral boundaries are now heavily gerrymandered in their favour, so I'm guessing the democratic party is pretty much irrelevant now?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by carex
I see "critical thinking" as a tool to learn. One can then apply it to many things. Exploring the underlying epistemological assumptions isn't actually questioning the process, but looking at how we can apply it further. etc...
I am very much in favour of encouraging "critical thinking", and you seem to give the impression that I am agreeing with the Republican position. I am not. What I said is that I can understand their concerns - concerns, which, of course, need to be addressed. Understanding someone's concerns is not the same as agreeing with a policy. For example, I am not a Marxist, but I can certainly "understand" some of the concerns of some Marxists.

If "critical thinking" is applied to practical matters, then, of course, that is not a problem. But there is a world of difference between the kind of practical critical thinking that you are advocating, and using this tool in a way that addresses deep metaphysical questions without analysing whether that tool is up to the job. I can't imagine that most Republicans are opposed to proper practical experimental science (correct me if I am wrong about that), but the tools of such a discipline cannot overreach into areas which go way beyond the scope of the scientific method. Unfortunately some people seem to think that the scientific method is omnipotent and defines "critical thinking". It is not and it does not.

quote:
I'm sure your logical analysis of the blatant straw man argument in opening post would give a pretty good hint at why nobody on the thread has taken your questions seriously, and those who might be interested in exploring such questions would avoid the thread in the first place.
No, it was on another blog. But I won't waste my time further responding to someone who dismisses valid points in the way you have here. Not a fine example of "critical thinking" on your part, I might say - and, in fact, quite typical of the original point I was making!
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am very much in favour of encouraging "critical thinking", and you seem to give the impression that I am agreeing with the Republican position. I am not. What I said is that I can understand their concerns - concerns, which, of course, need to be addressed. ...
Etymological, I'm not so sure you do. There's something quite frustrating about your line of argument. You seem to suggest that a thorough-going critique of experimental science from an anti-foundationalist perspective would set their minds at rest. I can't see this.

I'm working off my knowledge of their Florida cousins in ideology here, of course. In a sense, their Florida cousins have already accepted a version of the anti-foundationalist position. They feel able, without apologies, to have their own versions of American history ("America was founded as a Christian nation"), and their own versions of science (dead horses abound). For that matter, they have their own versions of just about everything,, enforced by their authorities and embedded in tight-knit communities. The influence of the frontier Holiness tradition can perhaps be found here: "Come out of her, O my people."

Their "paradigms," to use a term they probably would not use, are internally self-consistent to a remarkable degree. Any challenges from without are simply disregarded; those "facts" have been generated by a different "paradigm." Within their paradigm (yes, it's contradictory) is the domain of absolute truth, their truth.

quote:
I can't imagine that most Republicans are opposed to proper practical experimental science (correct me if I am wrong about that), but the tools of such a discipline cannot overreach into areas which go way beyond the scope of the scientific method. Unfortunately some people seem to think that the scientific method is omnipotent and defines "critical thinking". It is not and it does not.
I don't think a tight boundary can be drawn between "proper practical experimental science" (whatever that is) and the high-level scientific theories, with their sometimes uncomfortable consequences.

Practical applications of scientific theories do not require commitment to the scientific theory that underpins them. That is true. Forensic scientists can use DNA analysis in criminal cases, and microbiologists and the pharmaceutical industry both need at least a working concept of what's misleadingly called "microevolution." Allied health technicians can bracket out anything relating to the theory of evolution and still get their jobs done.

But I can't see how the basic research could have been done by scientists who were less than committed to evolutionary theory, and without the basic research, there's no DNA analysis, no clear understanding of viral and bacterial mutations, and so on.

Similarly, understanding microwave radiation has made it possible to heat up those Hot Pockets and Buffalo wings on demand, and it also makes communication satellites, wireless networks, and radar possible. These are all good, practical applications of theoretical science.

But in astronomy, the observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is considered the signature of the Big Bang, and some don't like the Big Bang, because it contradicts Genesis. So, do they get to disregard the bits of the theory of microwave radiation that lead to uncomfortable conclusions, and still have their microwave ovens? In the short run, yes. But in the long run, someone is going to have to do the theoretical science, and follow the lines of reasoning out no matter where they go, or nobody gets to have a microwave oven.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Rugasaw - as a Texan, could you tell us if this is receiving much media attention there? Has Jon Stewart picked it up yet? If your friends and neighbours became aware of this, do you think it would alter their attitudes to the Texan GOP?

I assume the republicans pretty much control everything in Texas? I heard that the electoral boundaries are now heavily gerrymandered in their favour, so I'm guessing the democratic party is pretty much irrelevant now?
As far as I have noticed the local media is not giving this any attention. As far as my friends and neighbors changing their views of the Texas GOP is highly unlikely.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...t the tools of such a discipline cannot overreach into areas which go way beyond the scope of the scientific method. Unfortunately some people seem to think that the scientific method is omnipotent...
I wonder what you think "the scientific method" is?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
They live in Florida, too. Entire rural subcultures can be like this. These are people who are not able to think critically or use higher-order thinking skills, and who fear them precisely because they don't know what these skills are, nor how, exactly, they are betraying to other people their failure to master and use them.

I have in mind people -- even whole cultures -- who are pretty well stuck in what used to be called the stage of concrete thinking. They can't really think abstractly, but that never used to be a problem. Concrete thinking used to serve them well enough; they just learned their routines and followed them. They would happily have gone on doing so forever, except that nowadays things keep changing so fast.
[/QUOTE]

I know that we're on the same side on the main issue here, but I have to say that this is nonsense. You can't just dismiss huge numbers of people because you thing they are just "rural subcultures", only capable of routine tasks, "rude mechanicals"., fitr only to obey the orders of their betters. Even if it was true (which is isn't) there are a great many fundamentalists and evangelicals and YECcies and climate-change-haters and teabaggers and anti-vaccinating-child-killes and so on who are fully functional members of modern urban society.

And there is no such thing as "the stage of concrete thinking", nor even, human beings who "can't really think abstractly" - or rather there might be a few but they woudl have serious mental health problems and be unable to understand normal language. Or probably tie their own shoelaces.
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Rugasaw - as a Texan, could you tell us if this is receiving much media attention there? Has Jon Stewart picked it up yet? If your friends and neighbours became aware of this, do you think it would alter their attitudes to the Texan GOP?

I assume the republicans pretty much control everything in Texas? I heard that the electoral boundaries are now heavily gerrymandered in their favour, so I'm guessing the democratic party is pretty much irrelevant now?
As far as I have noticed the local media is not giving this any attention. As far as my friends and neighbors changing their views of the Texas GOP is highly unlikely.
Thanks for responding Rugasaw. Are your friends and neighbours set in their views over the Texan GOP because they are republicans, or democrats? I guess what I'm really asking is if any independent voters in Texas became aware of this policy, do you think they would be more, or less, attracted to the the Texas GOP platform?

Cheers,

Lev
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am very much in favour of encouraging "critical thinking", and you seem to give the impression that I am agreeing with the Republican position. I am not. What I said is that I can understand their concerns - concerns, which, of course, need to be addressed. Understanding someone's concerns is not the same as agreeing with a policy. For example, I am not a Marxist, but I can certainly "understand" some of the concerns of some Marxists.

If "critical thinking" is applied to practical matters, then, of course, that is not a problem. But there is a world of difference between the kind of practical critical thinking that you are advocating, and using this tool in a way that addresses deep metaphysical questions without analysing whether that tool is up to the job. I can't imagine that most Republicans are opposed to proper practical experimental science (correct me if I am wrong about that), but the tools of such a discipline cannot overreach into areas which go way beyond the scope of the scientific method. Unfortunately some people seem to think that the scientific method is omnipotent and defines "critical thinking". It is not and it does not.
This seems a contradiction, like you're advocating "critical thinking", but not too much of it and not in "metaphyiscal" areas you think shouldn't be looked at too critically. If such questions shouldn't be critically examined, what method would you suggest?

As for whether the Republican party is "opposed to proper practical experimental science", I think they lost the benefit of the doubt with the King Canute memorial bill.

quote:
North Carolina's senators, however, have tried to stop state-funded researchers from releasing similar reports. The law approved by the senate on 12 June banned scientists in state agencies from using exponential extrapolation to predict sea-level rise, requiring instead that they stick to linear projections based on historical data.
After all, who would you trust to better know which data analysis tools to use; some egg-headed scientists, or elected officials?

[ 02. July 2012, 14:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, my example is not muddled, because I was making a point about the scope of the scientific method. Does the scientific method allow for the inference of unobserved intelligent agency?
No. It allows the hypothesis of an unobserved intelligent agency. And you can then test that hypothesis like any other.

But in order to have a meaningful hypothesis you need to be able to make predictions as to what would happen differently if your hypothesis didn't hold true. And we've some pretty good models of what would happen without intervention (they look like the real world fwiw).

quote:
We can infer the existence of such a designer from what we can observe.
No we can't. We can hypothesise such a designer and then follow through to the consequences. And the consequences we get are that we have a really crappy engineer that set the initial position off. And the methods used are entirely consistent with the evolution we'd see if either the designer did nothing or simply didn't exist.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
Thanks for responding Rugasaw. Are your friends and neighbours set in their views over the Texan GOP because they are republicans, or democrats? I guess what I'm really asking is if any independent voters in Texas became aware of this policy, do you think they would be more, or less, attracted to the the Texas GOP platform?

Cheers,

Lev
The republicans like listening to the radio heads and when you challenge them they say "well so and so said." The Democrats already are against the Republicans. The local paper has not made a stink about it so I doubt that many independents know about it.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:


Question to DH host - as this thread has returned to topic ever since it was moved here (I can't see where anyone has debated ID since), would it qualify for moving back to Purgatory?

Seems like an odd phenomena - in Purgatory it slipped into a Dead Horse debate, but in Dead Horses it has slipped back into a Purgatory debate! Is there a name for this, I wonder?

Cheers,

...Lev
I've thought about this for a while, and it seems to me that the subject of the thread would fairly easily bring up examples like intelligent design/creationism (as indeed has happened). Moving it back to Purgatory would curtail the areas the thread could cover, and I see no advantage in that. Meanwhile there's no problem with off-limits subjects here, so on balance I think it should stay, especially as ID has come up again. If you have any problems with that, then feel free to raise them in the Styx.

cheers,
Louise

Dead Horses Host
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken
I wonder what you think "the scientific method" is?
I can tell you what's it's not:

Philosophical naturalism.

(You know, the assumption that nature is a closed system; although it's strange that some scientists are quite happy to "infer" the 11th dimension - and parallel universes in that dimension - in M-Theory, but woe betide anyone who dares to suggest the existence of an eternal dimension that could contain an intelligent first cause).
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica
But in astronomy, the observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is considered the signature of the Big Bang, and some don't like the Big Bang, because it contradicts Genesis. So, do they get to disregard the bits of the theory of microwave radiation that lead to uncomfortable conclusions, and still have their microwave ovens? In the short run, yes. But in the long run, someone is going to have to do the theoretical science, and follow the lines of reasoning out no matter where they go, or nobody gets to have a microwave oven.
So microwave ovens cannot coexist with any theory of cosmology other than the Big Bang?

Sounds suspiciously like a category error to me - along with the claim that research into DNA and bacterial mutations are dependent on a commitment to the theory of evolution. In fact, DNA is not exactly contrary to intelligent design - or even biblical creationism - considering that the generation of information that is more complex than the information inherent in the laws of physics and chemistry (as is the case with the genome) rather blows the naturalistic theory out of the water.

quote:
You seem to suggest that a thorough-going critique of experimental science from an anti-foundationalist perspective would set their minds at rest.
Who said I was an "anti-foundationalist"? I am not aware that I have written anything that could lead to that conclusion. Please quote what I wrote which led you to that conclusion. I would be fascinated to see your reasoning.
 
Posted by Lev (# 50) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:


Question to DH host - as this thread has returned to topic ever since it was moved here (I can't see where anyone has debated ID since), would it qualify for moving back to Purgatory?

Seems like an odd phenomena - in Purgatory it slipped into a Dead Horse debate, but in Dead Horses it has slipped back into a Purgatory debate! Is there a name for this, I wonder?

Cheers,

...Lev
I've thought about this for a while, and it seems to me that the subject of the thread would fairly easily bring up examples like intelligent design/creationism (as indeed has happened). Moving it back to Purgatory would curtail the areas the thread could cover, and I see no advantage in that. Meanwhile there's no problem with off-limits subjects here, so on balance I think it should stay, especially as ID has come up again. If you have any problems with that, then feel free to raise them in the Styx.

cheers,
Louise

Dead Horses Host
Thanks for responding Louise. Probably best to keep it here as you say.

Cheers,

...Lev
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Sounds suspiciously like a category error to me - along with the claim that research into DNA and bacterial mutations are dependent on a commitment to the theory of evolution. In fact, DNA is not exactly contrary to intelligent design - or even biblical creationism - considering that the generation of information that is more complex than the information inherent in the laws of physics and chemistry (as is the case with the genome) rather blows the naturalistic theory out of the water.
No, it doesn't. How exactly are you defining and quantifying "information" anyway?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
On a more practical level, when you combine the Texas Republican party's opposition to critical thinking with their stated position in favor of using tax funds for private religious schools, you can see where this is headed by looking at Texas' neighbor Louisiana:

quote:
It sounds like a plot dreamed up by the creators of Southpark, but it's all true: schoolchildren in Louisiana are to be taught that the Loch Ness monster is real in a bid by religious educators to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution.

Thousands of children in the southern state will receive publicly-funded vouchers for the next school year to attend private schools where Scotland's most famous mythological beast will be taught as a real living creature.

These private schools follow a fundamentalist curriculum including the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) programme to teach controversial religious beliefs aimed at disproving evolution and proving creationism.

One tenet has it that if it can be proved that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as man then Darwinism is fatally flawed.
I'm not sure the move to suppress critical thinking is completely unrelated to teaching kids that Nessie is real.

Of course there's nothing inherent in Descent With Modification that says dinosaurs necessarily must be extinct, that's more an observed fact than a necessary conclusion. In fact, most scientists are perfectly comfortable with the idea of the descendants of Cretaceous-era reptiles surviving into the present day. This illustrates one of the ways cdesign proponentsism is a sort of cargo cult version of science, copying the forms but not the substance.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And there is no such thing as "the stage of concrete thinking", nor even, human beings who "can't really think abstractly"
It is quite clear -- blinding -- that you have never raised a child.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Sounds suspiciously like a category error to me - along with the claim that research into DNA and bacterial mutations are dependent on a commitment to the theory of evolution. In fact, DNA is not exactly contrary to intelligent design - or even biblical creationism - considering that the generation of information that is more complex than the information inherent in the laws of physics and chemistry (as is the case with the genome) rather blows the naturalistic theory out of the water.
No, it doesn't. How exactly are you defining and quantifying "information" anyway?
Dawkins' "Weasel Program" is a fallacy when used to support a naturalistic theory of the generation of information, as it requires a pre-existing target phrase against which all randomly produced results are compared. And then false results are discarded, which requires an interactive selection mechanism. This is actually a description of intelligent design, because such a function requires intelligent intervention.

Where did the target phrase come from? What generated it? Where does the mechanism come from that compares the randomly generated results with the target phrase?

As for my original point, allow me to quote Prof. Hubert Yockey;

quote:
Chaitin has examined the information content of the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the information content amazingly small.

The reason that there are principles in biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws.
(Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, chapter 1. Emphasis mine)
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Dawkins' "Weasel Program" is a fallacy when used to support a naturalistic theory of the generation of information, as it requires a pre-existing target phrase against which all randomly produced results are compared. And then false results are discarded, which requires an interactive selection mechanism. This is actually a description of intelligent design, because such a function requires intelligent intervention.
Biology has an interactive selection mechanism. It's called life, death, and reproduction. The dead ones that don't reproduce are what failed. The ones that reproduced and whose offspring reproduced passed. You only need the intelligent selection mechanism in a world where nothing dies naturally.

Who decides what the sentence is? The state of the world. Although it allows for many different "correct" sentences. And certain repetative predator/prey loops (bigger weapons vs more armour).
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by ken
I wonder what you think "the scientific method" is?
I can tell you what's it's not:

Philosophical naturalism.
So? What's that got to do with anything?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...the claim that research into DNA and bacterial mutations are dependent on a commitment to the theory of evolution.
Eh? Says who?

OK, pretty much everyone who studies genetics ends up talking about evolution because its obviously the case when you look at things in detail. But I'm sure its possible to study genetics - or at least to start to study genetics - without accepting the fact of evolution. And it might be the case that people who need to know something about, say medical genetics, or plant breeding, could get by fine without ever thinking about evolution from one year to the next if they didn;t want to.

Just as, by analogy, it would I suppose be possible to learn enough organic chemistry and biochemistry to be a pharmacist or a chemical engineer, and even to do some research, without knowing much about how atoms work at a nuclear or quantum level, just accepting the Periodic Table and things like valencies and electronic properties of atoms as a given. That's probably more than a lot of biologists know already.


quote:

... generation of information that is more complex than the information inherent in the laws of physics and chemistry (as is the case with the genome) rather blows the naturalistic theory out of the water.
What does that mean?

I suspect that it means "I don't like biology and these are the noises I make when I can't think of a good reason why I don't like biology" but I'm open to some clarification.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for my original point, allow me to quote Prof. Hubert Yockey;

quote:
Chaitin has examined the information content of the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the information content amazingly small.
(Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, chapter 1.)
That doesn't really answer the question, which is to ask how the concept of information is being applied here. Depending on the definition of information, entropy can be an increase in information or a decrease in information. And I don't think information as defined in information theory correlates at all with what human beings consider to be meaningful information. And it seems to me that the sense in which a functioning ecosystem contains more information than a primordial soup or a mixture of carbon dioxide and water is the humanly meaningful sense rather than one of the mathematically formulable senses.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And there is no such thing as "the stage of concrete thinking", nor even, human beings who "can't really think abstractly"
It is quite clear -- blinding -- that you have never raised a child.
On the contary, I have. She posts here sometimes. I was thinking about adults to be honest. But there were already a lot of words in the sentence so I didn't add another.

But language is impossible without abstract thinking, and children begin to undserstand langauge very early, and at least some have quite a good ability to produce language well before they are two years old - a few even start to read at that sort of age - so they must using abstract thinkng.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course there's nothing inherent in Descent With Modification that says dinosaurs necessarily must be extinct, that's more an observed fact than a necessary conclusion.
Dinosaurs aren't extinct. One flew by my office window just now. Only the big wingless diosaurs are extinct.

Also we're not extinct, as far as I can tell. I mean I might be the last man on earth, or even the last mammal, I've not actually talked to anyone face-to-face for the last half-hour or so so I suppose you all might have died while I wan't looking. But it seems statistically unlikely. Oh look, there's a bloke with a trumpet just opened a window in SOAS on the other side of the square, so at least some people still axist. And there's a young lad who seems to be asleep on a motor-scooter...

...anyway mamals are about the same age as dinosaurs, possibly even a little older, and we're still around. Different species of course, just like those crocodiles, but that's evolution for you.

Even then, some species seem to remain outwardly identical for hundreds of millions of years. One of my favourite plants is a fern called Osmunda regalis. I planted one in my garden over ten years ago and now its bigger than me in all directions. There are fossils of plants so similar to that that if they were still alive we'd put them in the same genus, going right back to the Triassic, and very closely related plants from the Permian - a long, long, time before either dinosaurs or mammals.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

And there is no such thing as ...human beings who "can't really think abstractly" ...
You've not met any of my students, then?
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

And there is no such thing as ...human beings who "can't really think abstractly" ...
You've not met any of my students, then?
Interesting blog post by "education realist" in this context.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
AIUI, there are some brain-wiring differences that interfere with thinking abstractly.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
ken:
quote:
Dinosaurs aren't extinct. One flew by my office window just now.
[Killing me] Quotes file.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AIUI, there are some brain-wiring differences that interfere with thinking abstractly.
So? You really think almost the entire population of whole counties has such "differences"?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AIUI, there are some brain-wiring differences that interfere with thinking abstractly.
So? You really think almost the entire population of whole counties has such "differences"?
I was simply objecting to your flat statement of:

quote:
And there is no such thing as "the stage of concrete thinking", nor even, human beings who "can't really think abstractly" - or rather there might be a few but they woudl have serious mental health problems and be unable to understand normal language. Or probably tie their own shoelaces.


Some things to consider:

-- From a US government course on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders (FASD):

quote:
Abstract thinking
Abstract thinking, often thought to develop around the age of 11 in normal children, includes a sense of space (microscopic space and cosmic space) and time (historical time and future time). Many individuals with a variety of disabilities have difficulty with abstract thinking. These difficulties appear to be common in those with an FASD.
I'll spare the admins more quotes to check. But many people, including those with ASD, have difficulty with abstract thinking. And there are recognized stages of cognitive development.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I suspect that people are talking at cross-purposes about exactly what they consider to be "abstract".

On one level, you're thinking pretty abstractly as soon you as start talking about your emotions, or about the colour blue.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
There may also be a problem with people consciously choosing to misuse abstract thinking.

The example of the North Carolina State Legislature might illustrate this. They apparently have constructed an abstract belief that blacks of any gender, along with women in general, are not really people.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Abstract thinking
Abstract thinking, often thought to develop around the age of 11 in normal children, includes a sense of space (microscopic space and cosmic space) and time (historical time and future time).
11? 3 or 4 is more like it. Mine could certainly grasp by that age that there were things too small to see that might make them ill, that the stars are very big but look small because they are so far away, that if you died in ancient Egypt someone would pull out your lungs and put them in a jar... loads of stuff requiring this sort of abstract thought.

In fact, yesterday, I explained prime numbers to my daughter (5 years 2 months), explaining why ‘5' is prime. I asked her if she could work out what the only even prime number is. It took her less than a minute (with no discussion and no clues, she just sat, thought for a bit, and said "it's two"). Don't get me wrong, I think my little girl is smart, but she's not Sheldon Cooper. She's perfectly capable of abstract thought.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Your daughter is at one end of the spectrum.

Piaget saw 12 as the AVERAGE age for abstract thought to begin.

There are plenty of adults in their 40s and 50s who are not capable of it. Including these Texans, it would appear.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Subsequent thought is that Piaget wasn't quite right on his ages and stages and that it's not as cut and dried as all that. I'd have to go and find the child development books to quote exactly, but it Piaget is simplifying.
 
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :
 
I didn't know anybody still bothered to read party platforms, to say nothing of actually following them.

(At least in the United States).

[ 06. July 2012, 19:55: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I didn't know anybody still bothered to read party platforms, to say nothing of actually following them.

(At least in the United States).
Ah, but they do. Most of my friends do and I do know that for the general public they're more concerned with how the hot button topics are dealt with in the platforms.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0