Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Scientificus Contralogicus

If you can't deal with someone's argument, simply change the subject something completely unrelated.

In response to my op-ed on the science standards in yesterday's Herald-Leader, we get this from Paul Vincelli, an extension professor and Provost's Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Kentucky who apparently wandered into the comment section of my op-ed from a totally different article:
I use the word "theory" in the sense of modern science: a set of well-established concepts that fit observations. In other words, no one doubts the existence of electricity, our understanding of which is based on the theories of electromagnetism, atomic structure, and quantum mechanics. In that sense of the word "theory", the theory of evolution and the theory of human-influenced climate change are fundamental to modern science. 
This is in response to my argument that the Next Generation Science Standards Kentucky just implemented are lacking in content knowledge. Don't you see the argument?
Evolution and global warming are fundamental to modern science
Therefore, content knowledge of nature is not fundamental to modern science
Maybe we should just take this as an indication of what is coming in the "critical thinking skills" program that the Common Core people still haven't produced.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

The theory of evolution doesn't cost me a dime. The end game of scientific "consensus" on the theory of man made climate change could cost me a small fortune and some Americans their jobs.

Art said...

This is in response to my argument that the Next Generation Science Standards Kentucky just implemented are lacking in content knowledge.

LOL

Martin's objections to the NGSS are simple and two-fold:

1. The standards do not acknowledge Martin's belief that the be-all and end-all of content knowledge consists of rote memorization of Latin names.

2. The standards to not allow for Martin's favorite mode of "scientific inquiry" - namely, fall on your knees and ask the voices in your heads for the answer. Martin eschews hypothesize-test using controlled and repeatable experiment-revise because the outcomes of this process inevitably contradict the edicts passed on by the voices Martin pays heed to.

I think Paul (and Tom Kimmerer) can be excused for not understanding the truly bizarre notions that Martin holds when it comes to science.

Art said...

The end game of scientific "consensus" on the theory of man made climate change could cost me a small fortune and some Americans their jobs.

Guess what, anon - your denial will cost you fortunes and jobs. If you are a farmer, denying the fact of global warming is already causing you to choose the wrong crops to plant, and the wrong times to plant. If you are a shipper, your denial is already depriving you of the shortest route to ship goods from the East Coast to Asia. And miles=money=jobs.

So, go ahead and build your vacation homes on shores that will be underwater in a few decades. But do us all a favor and don't ask us to pay for your stupidity. Swallow your losses, don't ask the government for a handout to pay for your deliberate mistake.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

I love it when Art makes stuff up. He's got an active imagination.

Here he is, attacking things I didn't say (rote memorization of Latin names, listening to voices as a scientific procedure) and defending what Tom Kimmerer did say (that the scientific method is obsolete.

Believing students should actually have science knowledge is bad, but believing that basic scientific procedures are superstitious is good.

Is there something in the water over there at UK that is causing its current and former professors to question fundamental scientific processes--in the defense of science?

Art said...

Martin, you have (more than once) spoken favorably of the notion that personal revelation is a way to knowledge. Are you revising your opinion on this matter?

Or is this another of the games you play, akin to your refusal to critically think about the age of the earth?

(We'll leave for now the apparent fact that you are as incapable of recognizing literary devices as you are unable to fathom even the simplest of mathematical operations.)

Daniel said...

Martin,

I guess I'm less interested in what you’re against in science education than in what you’re for. Why? I'm to all intents and purposes scientifically illiterate and looking to change that.

Imagine a scenario: A scruffy 22-year guy (i. e. zee present writer) lands on your doorstep and says "I want to explore the wonders of science. Where do I start?" Do you have any suggestions for him?

Art (and Singring, if you’re around),

Same question.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Martin Cothran said...

Daniel,

I think the main point of the now three pieces on this is the state papers is that a basic study of what nature actually consists of is not only the first, but the best place to start.

Singring said...

Hello again Daniel,

nice to have you back. Interestingly, at 22 you pretty much exactly fit into the group of young guys we welcome through our University's door every year. I talk to quite a few of them on a regular basis and even though they have often chosen science as their subject of study, some of them would ask the same questions you are asking.

'I'm to all intents and purposes scientifically illiterate and looking to change that.'

This is the best possible way you could start, in fact. Having a real, personally motivated desire tor learn is the optimal starting condition for any student, and I'm sure others here would agree with me, at least on that point.

' "I want to explore the wonders of science. Where do I start?" Do you have any suggestions for him? '

I have a few points of advice here. First (and this might sound as if I'm contradicting myself here), if you like using the internet and use it as your primary source of information, please do not start your quest for science at places like this.

Many, if not most, blogs and websites are written by people who either don't have an extensive science background and therefore get things wrong unintentionally (and I think Martin unfortunately falls into this category most of the time) or, sometimes, they are written by someone who wants to intentionally lie to you about science. Martin has, again unfortunately, linked to and favourably spoken about some of these people here in the past.

If you are, as you say, 'scientifically illiterate', then of course you will not be in a very good position at he moment to evaluate who is being truthful and accurate and who is being sloppy and misleading.

So the internet is generally a bad place to start if you don't know who to trust - unless you stick to very well established science websites like those of natural history museums, NASA etc and maybe ScienceBlogs (a network of blogs written by scientists).

So where should you start instead?

Your local library or, if you can afford it, your local bookshop.

You said you want to find out about 'science', which is so broad a field that I don't really know what specific text or book to recommend to you. It all depends if you're more into astronomy, biology, chemistry or physics or something else?

There are popular science books like 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson that have been checked by scientists and are also very entertaining to read, so that would be a good place to start stretching out your feelers. Magazines like the 'New Scientist' cover all sciences and do it at a level that should be accessible to most. Of course, going out and experiencing the natural world and making observations yourself goes hand in hand with reading about science.

Finally, science documentaries, while sometimes a bit sensational, are also a very good way to learn. Stick to the ones made by PBS or the BBC, those by other channels like the History channel are (usually) junk.

Let me know if you have any specific fields of interest and I can point you to some good sources, but maybe this gives you some ideas.

Al said...

Daniel,

Start at the philosophical beginning. What is science? It is, plain and simple, a mechanism to predict (probabilistically) the results of observations not yet performed. Anything that does not make practically testable predictions is NOT science, regardless of the pseudo-scientific hype promulgated by tax-hungry politicians, grant-hungry "scientists" and those with a naive philosophical or religious axe to grind. For example, the most successful scientific theory of all time is quantum mechanics which makes testable predictions in all relevant scenarios: these predictions have NEVER been wrong even when they are in complete contradiction with common sense.

If a so-called "theory" makes no testable predictions it is NOT science whatever any establishment patsy declares. Ask yourself, if in doubt, does this body of so-called knowledge make practically testable predictions or is it just a reverse-engineered narrative couched in quasi-scientific language?

Singring said...

'...regardless of the pseudo-scientific hype promulgated by tax-hungry politicians, grant-hungry "scientists" and those with a naive philosophical or religious axe to grind.'

Thanks for pointing this out, Al.

Thanks also for providing a ready-made example of your own point:
Obviously, someone who refers to 'tax-hungry politicians' and 'grant-hungry "scientists"' is someone who clearly has a philosophical axe to grind and therefore ought not to be looked to for advice on science.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

That's a helpful post. I will strive to be more like you from now on and never get anything unintentionally wrong.

Martin Cothran said...

Al,

If a so-called "theory" makes no testable predictions it is NOT science whatever any establishment patsy declares.

What about multiverse theory?

Singring said...

'I will strive to be more like you from now on and never get anything unintentionally wrong.'

When did I ever claim I never get anything unintentionally wrong?

Daniel said...

Martin,

Full disclosure: I haven’t been following all of your commentaries on the KY science standards, so if I say something foolish, please forgive me.

I’m going to take a shot at expanding on your comment: Your basic point as I understand it is: you can feed children facts, theories and “critical thinking” programs all day, but unless said children have a firm grounding in direct observation of the natural world, Messrs. Fact and Theory will find no place to hang their hats.

Have I understood you correctly?

Singring,

My local library actually seems to have quite a decent science section. So, you’re right: it would be a good place to start.

Okay, specific fields of interest: astronomy (I’m relocating to upstate NY in a few months, and I have a friend up there who describes himself as a “star geezer,” which I suppose would make me a star-geezer in training), biology (particularly the evolution of lifeforms), and physics (looking for a general introduction here).

Also, it might not hurt to brush up on my math skills (an pronounced allergy to math has been my biggest hurdle in finding a way into science).

Thanks in advance! :)

Sincerely,
Daniel

Al said...

@Martin Cothran, There is nothing whatsoever scientific about the multi-verse "theory". It is not a scientific theory because it makes no practically testable predictions. It is pure speculation although philosophically interesting in enterprises such as, for example, interpreting quantum theory.

@Singring, What you seem to be saying that because I have a less gullible view of human nature than you, I am less likely to give good advice about science. This is illogical. If I am "grinding an axe" it is an axe about human greed for money, status and power and not a philosophical one in anything but the most tenuous sense. If you consider your response a logical one then you only succeed in demonstrating that you understand philosophy and logic even more poorly than you understand science. My advice to you is to go away and learn to think independently instead of uncritically swallowing every cognitive dissonance our decaying culture throws at you. I'm sure you mean well but you are so out of your depth that it is almost painful to watch.

Singring said...

'What you seem to be saying that because I have a less gullible view of human nature than you, I am less likely to give good advice about science. '

Not quite.

What I am saying is that anyone who - right off the bat - uses terminology like 'grant-hungry' and 'tax-hungry' when referring to politicians and scientists is displaying an ideological bias that will unduly colour their view of science. This is the context in which I used the term 'philosophical axe to grind'. If you want to point out an error in semantics and protest my wording, then the compaint is well made and accepted. But that is not the point I was making.

For example, just based on that phrasing of yours, I predict that you do not accept established and robust climate science. I am willing to take a good bet that you are a climate skeptic, or maybe a climate denier (whichever way you want to put it).

If you want to use your allegations about 'human nature' as an excuse for rejecting well-established science, then that is of course your prerogative.

But don't expect me to take any of your statements about science seriously if they are - from the word go - couched in ideology.

Singring said...

Daniel,

'Okay, specific fields of interest: astronomy (I’m relocating to upstate NY in a few months, and I have a friend up there who describes himself as a “star geezer,” which I suppose would make me a star-geezer in training), biology (particularly the evolution of lifeforms), and physics (looking for a general introduction here).'

I am not an astronomer and therefore would not be comfortable giving you detailed advice on good sources in that field. Your stargazing friend in NY will probably be a better person to ask.

I haven't read a strict 'Astronomy' book (as in: stars, plantes etc.) in a long time. There are frequent articles in the New Scientist, however, which are always interesting. (That is a weekly publication I highly recommend to anyone interested in science).

However, when it comes to Cosmology, I am currently reading Lawrence Krauss' 'Quintessence' , which is a nice introduction into Dark Matter. Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' is a short, but extremely fascinating overview over current Cosmology. Of course, there's Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' and any number of more academic books on astronomy.

If you are interested in Evolutionary Biology, I can recommend a number of books. It really is worth reading Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species', because it lays out such a clear and well-argued case for the diversification of life via random variation and natural selection. It really amazes me that he was able to make such salient and accurate predictions as he did throughout his book over 100 years before the advent of molecular biology, which has so fully confirmed them.

Other good books on Evolutionary Biology are Stephen J Gould's 'Wonderful Life' and, if you're keen on something a bit more advanced, Richard Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene' (as well as Dawkin's other books).
I also very much enjoyed Jerry Coynes recent 'Why Evolution is true'. I actually agree with Martin on some of his criticism of Coyne, but the above book is an excellent primer on the evidence for and process of evolution that really does a good job of covering the basics while also giving some advanced detail and specific examples. 'Architects of Eternity' is also a very intersting tale, more about paleontological discoveries of great importance and the people and stories behind them. Less well known, but quite fascinating. Also, just because it is such a good read, I recommend 'Last Chance to See' by Douglas Adams. It is incredibly funny but also quite concerning as it chronicles his travels to various places in the world to encopunter extremely endangered species.

There are, of course, reams of textbooks on evolutionary biology. The best idea there is to pick one that you find easy to read and that you can gather information from quite easily.

In terms of Physics...I really am not sure what to recommend. most of the physics I take an interest in (on a popular science level!) is quantum-level stuff. I have heard good things about Richard Feynman's books, though. I suggest you contact a University Department of Physics and ask them for a good introductory text. I have 'Introduction to Physics' by Cutnell and Johnson in my office, but that is quite dense and probably needs an accomanying course to make most of.

With maths, I suggest you use some introductory maths texts (again, I wouldn't be the best person to ask about those) and augment those with online resources. For example, this website: www.mathtutor.ac.uk has some really good and comprehensive material covering basic to advanced maths. One thing I always found useful with maths was to use a book that was written in the context of a discipline you were interested in (e.g. mathematics for Biologists'), it makes the medicine go down a lot easier, if you see what I mean.

Hope this helps!