Should Metaphysics be taught in public school as part of the scientific method i.e. should MP be tau

[MrMrdevincamus]

They do but I meant "vestmented" - look up vestment - if you really do have above average intelligence you should be able to see what I mean.

I don't have to look it up I have already told you the two words are different. Did I say I have above avg IQ. I may have a higher than normal IQ but that doesn't help and sometimes can be a hindrance.

As regards science, what I said does not change as a result of any of your comments - science is meant to be wrong - at least potentially - that's how it works. A major principle of scientific investigation is falsifiability - a hypothesis has to be potentially falsifiable, it has to suggest some empirical/observational/experimental way in which the hypothesis could potentially be shown to be wrong. Explanations that cannot be shown to be wrong even if they are wrong are sometimes referred to as "not even wrong" -

Of course science theory is required to accept new evidence etc. I wrote a paper that was about by its very nature science has the same MO as a con man. A con man would say well the alibi I gave you can change at any moment, BUT IT ISN"T WRONG!....yeah I hear you convict. Lastly man I am happy to know that you agree evolution of the species is meant to be wrong! The problem occurs just a evolution thing shows is when scientists lay folks etc tell you (all red-faced etc) 'oh, the THEORY of evolution is a fact'. Laughable eh?

string "theory" is an example - it (actually they because there's a whole tangled mess of string "theories") fails to make the grade because it is not - at least not yet - potentially falsifiable.

It couldn't produce verifiable predictions was its biggest problem at first anyway, even now its questionable. I never accepted string theory and yes its a theory a serious scientific theory!

We have no way of detecting, observing or measuring them experimentally to see if they are really, really there. These "theories" (which really shouldn't be called "theories" in the scientific sense of the word)

Shouldn't be but surely is, and they are because certain people and groups wanted string theory to be real. It is that kind of emotion (any thing but hard science) that irks me, and worries me. The Science establishment has its own version of the ole boys (theory) ' going on.

are logically sound and mathematically consistent - but we have no idea whether the really describe anything that actually exists in the real world and no way of testing that. String theory is an example of speculative metaphysics in my opinion - and, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with that. But it is not "science" in the normally accepted tradition of the scientific method.

So who gets to judge what is science and what isn't? Maybe you should ask the man called the father of plate tectonics ?

I suppose there could be an argument (as you seem to be suggesting) that such ideas should indeed be admitted to the fold of scientific "theories" and that as long as a metaphysical speculation is sound and reasonably consistent with what we already know about the world and how it works, then it should be admitted as "science" too. I'm not at all comfortable with that. I am prone to a bit of metaphysical speculation myself, and whilst I do try to make my speculations consistent with science I would never in a month of Sundays presume to suggest that they were science.

There may be hope for you yet my friend.

But I do think that science and metaphysics (done properly) can together form a body of knowledge we might call a collection of "reasonable ideas about the world" - that is, after all, what we all want to have - I suppose. And I think that teaching kids how to reason logically and how to distinguish between positive scientific knowledge about the world and reasonable metaphysical speculation - and more importantly, how to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable speculation - would certainly be useful to the children of my grandchildren's generation.

If science ever advances to the point of knowing everything about everything past and future about the universe start to finish a deterministic universe uncertainty be dammed, there would not be a use for metaphysics in science, but we are far far away from anything even close to that pipe dream.

Some of the entirely unreasonable stupidity that defines the religious and political discourse of humanity - still, as my generation approaches its declining years well into the first quarter if the 21st century - has to be turned around some time - and with climate change denial, anti-scientific creationism and religious fanaticism still topping the agenda I don't see it happening in my life time. I can only hope our kids and grandkids have more sense and if we can teach them how to do metaphysics properly so that they can finally throw off the shackles of inherited, religiously motivated and preposterously bad metaphysics then well and good. But if you mean to allow them to be indoctrinated as we were then no thanks.

The children are already being dictatorially indoctrinated into an exclusive one world view where evolution rules, even if its just a theory. As far as climate change goes, if every human vanished overnight it would keep doing what its been doing as long as we have a way to look back in history, about 400m years, that is hot cool hot cool hot cool or cold like a sine wave man need not apply.

And BTW - metaphysics is not a worldview - its a method of inquiry - like science only different.

Ask a 100 different people from all walks of life and you will get 100 different answers. Metaphysics can be a world views if we wise up....but there ain't much hope for that!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I'd prefer that more time be devoted to teaching math.
And I propose a division in the curriculum....
1) For those applying it already or later, eg, engineering, physics, continue studying new topics.
2) For those who don't more advanced topics, work on applications.
For the #2 types, I've found that people are poor at using even basic arithmetic & algebra.
And yet, these things are needed in daily life, eg, rent proration, interest calculation.
These skills should be reinforced with real life applications.

I bring this up because I heard an interview on NPR with a pollster. She explained
the difficulty in making predictions about who has what probability of winning.
What was her groundbreaking solution to misunderstanding of poll statistics?
Instead of saying that Joe Smith has a "17%" chance of winning,
say that it's a "1 in 6" chance of winning.
You many imagine my mental face palm upon hearing the need for that.

Great post as usual...next time write something that will **** me off! ; )

 

[Revoltingest]

Great post as usual...next time write something that will **** me off! ; )

You got it....poopy head!

 

[exchemist]

Or; The Alternative title; Is this a backdoor method of adding ID to the public school curriculum...


I began wondering about the nature of reality and the existence of God and related things when I was nine or ten years old. As a student in public school that's the age my* indoctrination to logical positivism began. In the west only logical positivism is allowed to be taught in public schools. Ok, on to the main topic. Does anyone believe that if a claim of evidence presented it's meaningless if not empirically vetted? In other words who would agree that we should only accept a theory that has been vetted by the scientific method*** ? And that all other evidence is worthless, evidence such as circumstantial or by methods of logic? If that is true you have a lot of company! With all due respect and I do mean that, that view is a dangerous, asinine thing. I am sorry to say a majority of western educated scientists believe exactly that. I could go on but I've probably lost 99% of my readers, and its time for you to have your say.

Lastly (almost, I do ramble on.....) allow me to say I believe we should revive Metaphysics and then teach it with with the currently taught empirical science. When both metaphysical and empirical methods have earned tenure in the school system I am sure science will increase its discovery by orders of magnitude! That's because today there are several areas of science such as cosmology and theories of origins (of the universe) where empirical science is failing to produce verifiable results. Our science is faced with events that are violating scientific laws that have have been place for over 500 years (such as the speed of light apparently being exceeded by deep space objects, and phenomenon such as galaxies receding from earth that are speeding up! There is something wrong toto we ain't in Kansas no mo' ..... and that my RF friends is a true statement.

(BELOW) AN ARTIST'S IDEA OF SPACE TIME FABRIC

I'm not sure what you mean by "not producing verifiable results". I suspect what you mean is that there are areas in science where the theories do not correctly predict what is observed. That of course is true, and will continue to be so until every phenomenon in the universe has been successfully accounted for. At which point science will have no more work to do. It is no criticism of science to observe that its work is not yet finished.

You also garble your physics. Firstly, the concept of the speed of light as an absolute speed limit has only been with us for a century, not 500 years. Secondly, there is no violation of scientific laws in distant objects in the cosmos receding from one another at a rate greater than the speed of light. This is because this arises due to the metric of spacetime itself expanding. More here: Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

As for teaching metaphysics in schools, I'm all for this, provided it is not done in science lessons. In British schools religious education is taught. This is often expanded a bit into wider philosophical ideas. I should think that would be the way to do it.

Regarding science, I think a little teaching of the basic philosophy of science should be included in the science curriculum, including such important ideas as:
- the absence of "proof" of theories in science,
- the concept of theories as models of reality, rather than reality itself,
- the requirement that scientific theories should make predictions and be testable by observing nature to see if their predictions are correct.
- the scope of science being limited to explanation of nature in terms of nature, rather than the supernatural, for instance.

But this sort of thing is best left until the 6th form (age 16+), as the abstract nature of these concepts is probably needlessly confusing to younger children.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

You got it....poopy head!

Poopy head ........mmmm'...Maybe some of your liberal friends could give you some pointers! They PO me even when they are trying to be nice!
(just making a funny)

 

[David T]

Or; The Alternative title; Is this a backdoor method of adding ID to the public school curriculum...


I began wondering about the nature of reality and the existence of God and related things when I was nine or ten years old. As a student in public school that's the age my* indoctrination to logical positivism began. In the west only logical positivism is allowed to be taught in public schools. Ok, on to the main topic. Does anyone believe that if a claim of evidence presented it's meaningless if not empirically vetted? In other words who would agree that we should only accept a theory that has been vetted by the scientific method*** ? And that all other evidence is worthless, evidence such as circumstantial or by methods of logic? If that is true you have a lot of company! With all due respect and I do mean that, that view is a dangerous, asinine thing. I am sorry to say a majority of western educated scientists believe exactly that. I could go on but I've probably lost 99% of my readers, and its time for you to have your say.

Lastly (almost, I do ramble on.....) allow me to say I believe we should revive Metaphysics and then teach it with with the currently taught empirical science. When both metaphysical and empirical methods have earned tenure in the school system I am sure science will increase its discovery by orders of magnitude! That's because today there are several areas of science such as cosmology and theories of origins (of the universe) where empirical science is failing to produce verifiable results. Our science is faced with events that are violating scientific laws that have have been place for over 500 years (such as the speed of light apparently being exceeded by deep space objects, and phenomenon such as galaxies receding from earth that are speeding up! There is something wrong toto we ain't in Kansas no mo' ..... and that my RF friends is a true statement.

(BELOW) AN ARTIST'S IDEA OF SPACE TIME FABRIC

Should we teach poetry as a scientific method? Should we teach music as an alternative chemistry class ? Should we teach psychology as an alternative engineering class?

Should we even be teaching metaphysics at all in public schools?

Hell no since its a confused mess in religion i cant see how public schools could pissibly (ooops freudian) do a better job at all.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

NOTE TO FORUM; I should have pasted the definition of metaphyics this thread is based on. Better late than never I suppose. The definition unless I specify otherwise is this : Metaphysics.... met·a·phys·ics
[ˌmedəˈfiziks]NOUNthe branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not producing verifiable results". I suspect what you mean is that there are areas in science where the theories do not correctly predict what is observed. That of course is true, and will continue to be so until every phenomenon in the universe has been successfully accounted for. At which point science will have no more work to do. It is no criticism of science to observe that its work is not yet finished.

And you think I garble physics? All scientific theory should produce repeatable verifiable results. Google 'string theory no verifiable results'. Maybe if you are a brit our language meaning is a little different.

You also garble your physics. Firstly, the concept of the speed of light as an absolute speed limit has only been with us for a century, not 500 years.

No I do not garble physics.I do butcher English grammar tho', and I have already explained the 500 year comment. And I was, and am correct.

Secondly, there is no violation of scientific laws in distant objects in the cosmos receding from one another at a rate greater than the speed of light. This is because this arises due to the metric of spacetime itself expanding. More here: Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

Yes, that is the theory, not verified of what is happening. Also the distant galaxies are SPEEDING up not slowing as they should if the theory of gravity etc is correct. That is far more troubling than the speed of light not being constant.

As for teaching metaphysics in schools, I'm all for this, provided it is not done in science lessons. In British schools religious education is taught. This is often expanded a bit into wider philosophical ideas. I should think that would be the way to do it.

That would be a good start.

Regarding science, I think a little teaching of the basic philosophy of science should be included in the science curriculum, including such important ideas as:
- the absence of "proof" of theories in science,
- the concept of theories as models of reality, rather than reality itself,
- the requirement that scientific theories should make predictions and be testable by observing nature to see if their predictions are correct.
- the scope of science being limited to explanation of nature in terms of nature, rather than the supernatural, for instance.
But this sort of thing is best left until the 6th form (age 16+), as the abstract nature of these concepts is probably needlessly confusing to younger children.

Again that would be a good start. The problem I see is the unknown areas. Right now with its death grip on logical positivism science has a 'don't EVEN ask' policy. This is just a guess but barring some great discovery such a true TOE I fear a dark age, not of civilization but one of science is on the long range horizon. We should encourage the acceptance of alternative ideas. The true fear among left wingers and their cousin liberals is that allowing Metaphysics will allow ID to get their toe in the door so to speak. That will happen eventually I feel because science will invariably become more and more unable to explain the natural world using only empirical science.

 

[exchemist]

NOTE TO FORUM; I should have pasted the definition of metaphyics this thread is based on. Better late than never I suppose. The definition unless I specify otherwise is this : Metaphysics.... met·a·phys·ics
[ˌmedəˈfiziks]NOUNthe branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.





And you think I garble physics? All scientific theory should produce repeatable verifiable results. Google 'string theory no verifiable results'. Maybe if you are a brit our language meaning is a little different.



No I do not garble physics.I do butcher English grammar tho', and I have already explained the 500 year comment. And I was, and am correct.



Yes, that is the theory, not verified of what is happening. Also the distant galaxies are SPEEDING up not slowing as they should if the theory of gravity etc is correct. That is far more troubling than the speed of light not being constant.



That would be a good start.



Again that would be a good start. The problem I see is the unknown areas. Right now with its death grip on logical positivism science has a 'don't EVEN ask' policy. This is just a guess but barring some great discovery such a true TOE I fear a dark age, not of civilization but one of science is on the long range horizon. We should encourage the acceptance of alternative ideas. The true fear among left wingers and their cousin liberals is that allowing Metaphysics will allow ID to get their toe in the door so to speak. That will happen eventually I feel because science will invariably become more and more unable to explain the natural world using only empirical science.

Bizarre reply. Are you a Jehovah's Witness, by any chance?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

To clarify a statement about string theory; A clearer response is ; 'String Theory made no verifiable predictions (rather than results) for over 11 years (give or take) '.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Bizarre reply. Are you a Jehovah's Witness, by any chance?

No I am a Primitive Christian* JW's a cult IMO. The reason I posted the clarification was I don't like to be misunderstood and it was obvious the wrong definition was being used by some readers. The definition of MP I intended did not have to be associated with religion or something similar.

* almost the same as a redletter Christian who lives by Jesus first teachings.

 

[exchemist]

No I am a Primitive Christian* JW's a cult IMO. The reason I posted the clarification was I don't like to be misunderstood and it was obvious the wrong definition was being used by some readers. The definition of MP I intended did not have to be associated with religion or something similar.

* almost the same as a redletter Christian who lives by Jesus first teachings.

Ah a primitive Christian. Well, you said it.

I can see we are not likely to agree about anything. Have a nice day.

 

[sealchan]

I think it's perfectly fine to have a critical understanding of metaphysics taught in school.

Science does not tell us what is true, it allows us to make assessments about what is true based on what is falsifiable and what is not.

In other words, scientific research replaces our incorrect ideas with less-incorrect ideas. Whether the new ideas are true is another story.
However, science is the best we have.

Let's call that the weak truth argument for science. I support a strong truth argument that says time tested laws and theories of science which support technological development (engineering) shows that science is deeply true and revisions to scientific truths tend to be such that our engineering is not impacted.

 

[siti]

I am happy to know that you agree evolution of the species is meant to be wrong! The problem occurs just a evolution thing shows is when scientists lay folks etc tell you (all red-faced etc) 'oh, the THEORY of evolution is a fact'. Laughable eh?

Oh dear!

The children are already being dictatorially indoctrinated into an exclusive one world view where evolution rules

Oh dear!

As far as climate change goes, if every human vanished overnight it would keep doing what its been doing as long as we have a way to look back in history, about 400m years, that is hot cool hot cool hot cool or cold like a sine wave man need not apply.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...!!!

Oh deary, deary me! Those nasty, nasty scientists. The devil's progeny for sure - every last one of 'em.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Bizarre reply. Are you a Jehovah's Witness, by any chance?

Why? Do you expect bizarre replies only from JWs?

To clarify a statement about string theory; A clearer response is ; 'String Theory made no verifiable predictions (rather than results) for over 11 years (give or take) '.

That is OK. We will get an even better picture 20 years from now. If they can defend it theoretically, then it remains a possibility. We may (or not) find evidence. If we find some evidence, we will research it more. 'Goddidit' is no answer.

 

[HonestJoe]

First, regarding your poll question; Science isn’t wrong. Science doesn’t do anything, it is just a way we can do things. If we follow scientific process correctly, we can’t get a wrong answer in the context of the available evidence meaning sometimes (often!), the right answer in context is “we don’t know”. We can get the wrong answer if we make mistakes in our implementation of science and we can get the wrong answer if we’re not aware of all of the relevant evidence but that can hardly be blamed on science. If you’re on a road trip and you get lost, run out of fuel or crash, would you call that “Driving” getting it wrong?

Does anyone believe that if a claim of evidence presented it's meaningless if not empirically vetted?

No, literally nobody believes that, even if they don’t realise it. Pretty much every piece of “evidence” we make use of in our day-to-day lives isn’t formally measured or vetted so obviously that doesn’t render the evidence meaningless. That said, different kinds of evidence can have different value, different levels of trustworthiness, relevance or importance and that is where formal vetting, either in person or by a trusted proxy, can be a key factor.

In other words who would agree that we should only accept a theory that has been vetted by the scientific method*** ?

That isn’t your previous statement in other words, it’s an entirely different one. The key here is how you’re using the word theory. A formal scientific theory requires formal scientific evidence to back it up (though “maybe” and “we don’t know” remain valid conclusions). An informal “theory”, just a general idea of how something actually is can be based on similarly informal evidence (though the same conclusion options remain and are probably more likely).

I am sorry to say a majority of western educated scientists believe exactly that.

I think you’re wrong but we could get in to some major Inception-style problems if I asked you for evidence.

Lastly (almost, I do ramble on.....) allow me to say I believe we should revive Metaphysics and then teach it with with the currently taught empirical science.

I’d have no issue with that in principle as long as it was taught honestly and correctly and I’d see it more in the humanities/philosophy side rather than the scientific. There’s be all sorts of practical issues of course, determining what should be taught at what age, having sufficiently qualified teachers (even establishing what is sufficient qualification) plus the general issue of piling yet another teaching requirement on schools to the ever-growing list of expectations and requirements they’re somehow meant to fit in to the fixed classroom time.

When both metaphysical and empirical methods have earned tenure in the school system I am sure science will increase its discovery by orders of magnitude!

I’m not sure how you expect this to happen. I don’t agree that metaphysics is as excluded from the formal sciences as you imply and there is certainly nothing preventing it from being applied by anyone who would wish to do so. While there may well be questions it could help with, you’ve offered nothing to convince me of the sudden massive shift you’re imagining would happen.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Ah a primitive Christian. Well, you said it.

Indeed I did say it. Stick around and you may learn to comment or reply without insulting your fellow member. You act like your arrogance is a virtue.

I can see we are not likely to agree about anything. Have a nice day.

It's not that we don't agree about the main subject. The problem is the majority of your replies are either nit picking details, or you present non-sourced evidence*, or you paste hearsay that has little bearing to the main issue(s). Lastly attempting to be witty and answer with an insult is a sure way to lose a debate. There is no reason to use such tactics.

 

[exchemist]

Indeed I did say it. Stick around and you may learn to comment or reply without insulting your fellow member. You act like your arrogance is a virtue.



It's not that we don't agree about the main subject. The problem is the majority of your replies are either nit picking details, or you present non-sourced evidence*, or you paste hearsay that has little bearing to the main issue(s). Lastly attempting to be witty and answer with an insult is a sure way to lose a debate. There is no reason to use such tactics.

Have a nice day.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

, that is OK. We will get an even better picture 20 years from now.

Or we may be living with a faulty theory for a hundred or more years. Early this century a scientific discovery (early humanoid) was made, careers built on it etc etc and that fraud lasted over 40 years! I will not be living that lie(s) because I know science can be corrupt or wrong. I know, I know, science must be falsifiable, a sixth grader knows that. But that is not the case in real life. Certain 'teachers pet theories' (TP theories) are accepted as fact. By that I mean falsifiablity to those that 'worship' TP theories are a technicality that can be ignored. For non-spiritual people, modern secular folk for the most part science describes reality. When major or even minor theory is wrong or incomplete or corrupt etc those secular folks reality is corrupted. That seems tragic, especially if the people trust sciences theories as facts they use to define their worldview. Lastly the secular science establishment has a double standard for evidence acceptance etc. Every since around the time of the Vienna Circle only empirical evidence was acceptance. Every thing else was meaningless. That rigid criteria is blurred these days! String theory and other theory etc did not meet the criteria for the scientific method, still ST and other theory is nearly embraced as fact.

If they can defend it theoretically, then it remains a possibility. We may (or not) find evidence. If we find some evidence, we will research it more. 'Goddidit' is no answer.

Science is at a true loss to describe what caused the big bang to bang. So, Goddidit is just as good an guess as what science has given us for what happened at t = 1 x 10 -43 (t= when time began, or when time could begin to be measured). Our physics and all science break down nano seconds before we arrive at the BB event and the creatio ex nihilo. We may find in time that God did do it ~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Have a nice day.

Thank you for your kind words ~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Dear Honest Joe, I deleted my reply to you. I hurried through it but upon reading it I decided I should take more time to answer several comments. Btw, yours was a very good well thought out reply tho'. Will answer soon.