Monday, December 19, 2011

KY school official's letter to superintendent only partially evolved

Just when the public education establishment thought it had stamped out all dissent in its ranks on the issue of evolution, low and behold it now finds a rogue male that has somehow separated from the herd.

Here's the Lexington Herald-Leader, reporting on this crisis:
A Western Kentucky school superintendent is arguing that a new test which Kentucky high school students will take for the first time next spring will treat evolution as fact, not theory, and will require schools to teach that way.
The letter, written by Hart County School Superintendent Ricky D. Line, has sparked an animated demonstration among the chattering classes here in the state--and has caused a number of skeptic and atheist bloggers to leave off grooming themselves long enough to cast the usual aspersions in the general direction of anybody who strays away from the tribe.

The letter prompted a response by officials on the highest branch of the education tree: State Commissioner of Education Terry Holliday and the Kentucky School Board. At first blush, the letter sounds pretty impressive. But after running it through our usual battery of observational procedures here at Vital Remnants, it becomes clear that a number of things don't add up.

The letter is signed by the Commissioner but, by his own admission, he relies on research provided by the Department of Education's "legal and curriculum staffs." Now I can't say too much bad about the lawyers at KDE: They, at least, got real actual academic degrees. But "curriculum staff"? Are these people with "education degrees"? As we have pointed out here before, you can get better academic credentials by mailing in a coupon from a cereal box.

The letter gives the superintendent a lecture on the use of the word "theory." Line had asserted that evolution was "just a theory." Holliday says that, in science, the word "theory" does not mean, as it does in common usage, "little more than a guess." Holliday takes him to task for using the term in its everyday use rather than its use among the higher species of hominids known as "scientists."

Apparently Holliday and the Board didn't notice that Line was not making a scientific statement, but speaking in common English, in which the common usage of the word was exactly as Line was using it. Line was not engaging in science when he wrote the letter: He was speaking in common everyday English to the State Commissioner of Education. But, of course, educrats have trouble with common English and strongly prefer jargon to plain speech.

"Theory" as Holliday defines it, is a scientific jargon word, with a different meaning inside the discipline, one which is surely quite useful there. But which, outside it, only offers education bureaucrats an opportunity to make pedantic points that have no real relevance to the discussion.

Lectures like this (which you hear every time you use the word "theory" in its vernacular sense in the presence of a Darwinist ideologue) are turned into an opportunity to enforce a dominance hierarchy in which those who dissent from the Approved opinions are kept in their proper place in the cultural pecking order by implying that those who disagree with the dominant paradigm are just not very smart. Either that or they just can't make a basic distinction between common vernacular speech and the technical vocabulary of an academic discipline, which, in itself is not very smart.

Secondly, in the process of giving this lecture, Holliday says:
In science, facts never become theories. Rather, theories explain facts. [emphasis in original]
That is, at best, an oversimplification. All you've got to do is to and talk to a quantum physicist, who (if he adheres to the Copenhagen interpretation, the original and still standard interpretation of the theory) will tell you that science is not in the business of explanation, but of prediction. Quantum theory, the most successful predictive paradigm in science, has, for all practical purposes, handed explanation back to the philosophers. Niels Bohr. Check it out.

Then there's this gem:
Additionally, science is not a system of belief. To ask if a scientist ‘believes’ in the theory of evolution is an improper question because the term ‘belief’ implies a position or opinion based on faith. A biologist would properly say he/she understands and acknowledges the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Belief is an act of faith and is not necessarily concerned with the availability of supporting evidence. For this reason, beliefs are not considered to be within the realm of science.
Just go ask a real scientist if he "believes" in the theory of evolution. You know what will happen? In all likelihood, he'll say, "Yes." He won't give you some geekish lecture on the proper way to phrase the question in a scientific environment.

Fortunately the ignorance that prevails in the higher branches of the public education tree has not yet infected lexicography. Here are a few definitions of "belief" culled from standard dictionaries:
  • American Heritage: "Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons"
  • Merriam-Webster: " conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence."
  • Webster's New World Dictionary: "A belief is an opinion or something that a person holds to be true."
Not only does this not comport with what you will find in almost any standard dictionary, it doesn't comport with the terminology commonly used in academics disciplines like philosophy, a discipline that does things like, you know, define.

And even if it were true that the term "belief" only referred to opinions based on faith, scientists don't talk like this. They commonly talk about "believing" that the theory of evolution (or replace this with any other scientific theory). So if scientists themselves talk this way, why are we giving pedantic lectures to school superintendents?

This is all nonsense. Under the most universal use of these terms science is belief based on reason and evidence and faith is belief based on divine revelation or authority. These terms are used this way all the time by people in and outside the discipline of science.

The irony here is that most people believe in evolution on the same basis they believe in religious faith positions: on the basis of authority. They don't have the least conception of what the scientific evidence for it is; they simply believe it on the grounds that the scientists they've heard about say it's true. The further irony is that many scientists, who claim to be all about reason and evidence, not only think there is nothing wrong with all the people who believe in Darwinism on the basis of scientific authority, but think it would be unscientific not to!

Besides, science proceeds as much by scientists' faith in their own hunches and intuitions as by reason and evidence, as anyone familiar with Einstein--or for that  matter Galileo (whose heliocentrism was not supported by the evidence of the time, as the Church rightly pointed out)--would know.

Finally, Holliday tries his hand at the law, with the help, apparently, of his legal department:
Moreover, the federal courts have ruled that creation science, a religious concept or belief, is not science at all. [See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 764 (E.D.Pa. 2005); McLean v. Ark. Bd. of Educ., 529 F.Supp. 1255, 1259 (E.D.Ark.1982) (dismissing “creation science” as “simply not a science”).]
It may be true or false that creation science is not science. But to appeal to a court decision--and a problematic one at that, is slightly strange. Courts may have the power to dictate what schools can and can't teach, but to appeal to them as the final arbiters of the definition of science is highly problematic to say the least. Philosophers of science can't even agree on where to draw the line between science and non-science. So how is a judge supposed to competently do it?

In fact, the reasoning in the Kitzmiller decision, at some points, inconsistent, and, at others, simply laughable. I wrote a response to the section on the ruling in which the scientific status of ID is discussed here.

Judge John Jones first simply assumes Karl Popper's demarcation criterion--that a necessary condition for something to be science is that it be potentially falsifiable. But Popper's demarcation criterion has long been considered problematic in the philosophy of science, since it excludes activities commonly acknowledge to be science. Anyone blindly applying it as Jones does has no business making authoritative pronouncements about what makes science different from non-science.

Jones argues that Intelligent Design does not meet this criterion because it is not falsifiable. He then turns right around and argues that it is false. If it's not false, then it is falsifiable, and if it is not falsifiable, then it cannot be false. But he just goes on hoping that no one will notice the blatant contradiction in his argument.

Such is the state of the Commissioner of Education's arguments. But remember: it's superintendent Line who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Sheez.

6 comments:

KyCobb said...

Martin,

It kind of makes sense to reference legal decisions in the Commissioner's letter, since if the Department of Education taught creationism as Mr. Line suggested, it would be a court ultimately ordering the schools to pay a six figure sum for legal fees to the ACLU.

Scott Goodman said...

Martin,

On the surface, bureaucrats arguing over science may seem a good target for lampooning commentary, except that something important is actually at stake here. First, it is not part of a school superintendent's job to determine the validity of the science curriculum. Most of them are not qualified to make such a judgement and in any case, it is not part of their job description.

On the other hand, curriculum matters are part of the State Commissioner of Education's job and the curriculum staff that you are so contemptuous of are experts whose direct responsibility is making sure the curriculum is correct and up to date. I would bet that you don't have any idea of their actual qualifications but it is clear that you want people to join you in your view that education degrees are to be earned by "mailing in a coupon from a cereal box". You might just as well get the rest of the kids from the school yard together and beat up the kid with the thick glasses who is getting straight A's. It would be about the same level of behavior.

It is clear that you have contempt for science and want to celebrate ignorance over erudition. For example, insisting on educating people about what science means by words like "theory" is not, as you assert, an attempt to "enforce a dominance hierarchy". It is an attempt to have people accurately understand what the word means in a scientific context. This is because the difference in meaning between everyday use of the word and use by science is different and the difference really matters.

Not surprisingly, you make exactly the same sort of argument about the word "believe", attempting to equate acceptance of evidence based science with religious belief by insisting that a vernacular use of the word by a scientist in response to the question "do you believe in evolution" in any way means the same thing.

It is true that most people who accept that evolution is a fact and the the theory of evolution is the best explanation for that fact do so on the basis of authority, as they do with religious beliefs. What you fail to mention is that, in the case of religion, there is no other basis than authority. In science, anyone can acquire the knowledge and examine the evidence for themselves. Religion? Not so much.

You are a well known supporter of Intelligent Design, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Whatever your view of the Kitzmiller decision, it is a matter of public record that proponents of ID like Michael Behe were forced to admit that this is true and that no actual research has been done on ID. One thing is certain, attempting to heap scorn on science and learning and those who defend it isn't an argument of any sort. It is just a schoolyard bullying tactic. If this is the best you can do, then ID truly is an impoverished idea. But go ahead and beat up the smart kid if you want. He's still getting A's and you're still just a bully.

Singring said...

I find it deeply troubling that a teacher makes light of people who are trying to prevent a falsehood from being taught to children in school.

I also find it hugely entertaining to find that you see no problem with Mr. Line using 'theory' in a colloquial sense, but have previously ridiculed me and others for using philosophical terms in a colloquial sense - and we aren't school officials, mind you! Remember how you tried to assert that doctors who say the 'purpose' of the heart is to pump blood were using the word in a teleological sense?

These rules seem to apply to everyone but you, Martin.

'The irony here is that most people believe in evolution on the same basis they believe in religious faith positions: on the basis of authority. '

So what???

Most people believe that the earth is spheroid based on authority - are you know going to ridicule those who oppose the teaching of flat-earth in school?

'Philosophers of science can't even agree on where to draw the line between science and non-science.'

But the vast amjority of philosophers (even Christian ones, I would assme) agree that ID and especially creationism are *not* science. If you want to appeal to authority, why stop half-way, Martin?

'Jones argues that Intelligent Design does not meet this criterion because it is not falsifiable. He then turns right around and argues that it is false. If it's not false, then it is falsifiable, and if it is not falsifiable, then it cannot be false. But he just goes on hoping that no one will notice the blatant contradiction in his argument.'

Specific claims of ID can be falsifiable and therefore shown to be false (e.g. the 'design' of certain parts of the flagellum), but the idea of ID itself (that certain things in nature are intelligently designed) is indeed unfalsifiable.

It's called the fallacy of composition, Martin. You really ought to read up on it - maybe in your own book on logic?

No wonder Kentucky is in the educational doldrums.

Sheez.

Martin Cothran said...

Scott,

You are a well known supporter of Intelligent Design, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Would you care to document where I have ever expressed support for Intelligent Design?

Martin Cothran said...

Scott,

It is clear that you have contempt for science and want to celebrate ignorance over erudition.

I heaped scorn on pedantry. Where did I heap score no science per se?

Martin Cothran said...

Scott,

First, it is not part of a school superintendent's job to determine the validity of the science curriculum. Most of them are not qualified to make such a judgement and in any case, it is not part of their job description.

I don't disagree with you here. But I wasn't criticizing Line's statements. His scientific opinions may well be completely mistaken. The point of this post was the extent to which truth is permitted to be stretched in the pursuit of the criticism of people like Line.

And since much of the criticism of line is that his position on evolution is doesn't comport with the truth, it seems to me his critics should live up to the same
they apply to Line.