What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[ecco]

I know nothing of Von Daniken or any of his theories.

What?

Oh. Checking back I see that I was in a conversation with oldbadger, you jumped in and I didn't realize you were not him. OK.

Somewhere life evolved countless billions of years ago. Now long before a planet is capable of evolving life by itself it is seeded from the outside by the solar winds and cosmic debris. This life has already been in existence (and changing) for billions of years.

You seem to be referring to Panspermia...

the theory that life on the earth originated from microorganisms or chemical precursors of life present in outer space and able to initiate life on reaching a suitable environment.
​

So, whether abiogenesis occurred on earth or elsewhere or both, the fact is that abiogenesis did occur.

Why would you believe it only occurred elsewhere?

 

[ecco]

Consciousness is apparently innate to life. It is the only thing provided by nature for survival because "fitness" is irrelevant to survival, or at least, to change in species.

On what do you base that assertion?

 

[ecco]

Yeah, I had a really good 'THINK!' and decided that if lifeforms exist elsewhere in the Universe that neither you nor I have the first clue about anything that they might be able to do...... at all.

And your rocket-man probably can't land his craft on a postage stamp, either......... Oh...... what the hell...... go on. Show a vid of this bloke or something, it'll give you something to do.

So, you've never heard of Elon Musk?

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, don't get upset by creationists.......... I mean, if you saw a telly article about an Indian tribe that believed in the Great Grey Wolf in the sky or whatever, would it spoil your day that much? And before you tell me about those creationists and their damage, I'm much more irritated by charities who want me to pay £3 a month to save working donkeys in deepest Africa and its Chief Executive receives £150,000 pa.

They may not be a big force in the UK, but they are a major one here in the US. They like to get on school boards which choose textbooks, especially in California and Texas. Those two states dominate the market and most textbook companies use their 'standards' for what they publish. That means the crap gets pushed to schools across the US>

 

[Altfish]

Only when 'science' stops disproving 'science'. For examples, only when all tower buildings are reasonably safe in fires. Only when medical developments are sure and healthy. Only when commercial science is a word that means 'trustworthy'.

[/QUOTE]
The whole purpose of science is advancement. You can advance science by disproving other ideas.
Your example of tower blocks and fire is poor. It was politics and 'value engineering' driven by politicians that caused the fire in Grenfell Tower. If scientists had been given the correct tools, enough money they would have proved the cladding was ineffective or a fire hazard.
People will follow the money (e.g. climate change) to lie on behalf of science and the likes of Fox News keeps these people in employment.

 

[Audie]

The whole purpose of science is advancement. You can advance science by disproving other ideas.
Your example of tower blocks and fire is poor. It was politics and 'value engineering' driven by politicians that caused the fire in Grenfell Tower. If scientists had been given the correct tools, enough money they would have proved the cladding was ineffective or a fire hazard.
People will follow the money (e.g. climate change) to lie on behalf of science and the likes of Fox News keeps these people in employment.

Thing is with the old b, you are arguing against an attitude.
If one set of facts wont do, a pre set attitude can be supported with another.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Everything known is evidence. Everything observed is evidence. No matter how many times I present the evidence it is dismissed as an irrelevancy. Change in species is driven by individual consciousness and behavior not suitability, adaptability, or fitness. Just look around. Look at what has actually happened.

Again, these are all claims. How does the consciousness of a sperm or egg cell decide which mutations they will have? What is the mechanism for consciousness determining which mutations will occur? What observations, if made, would falsify your claims?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Life and the very origin of change in species is sentience.

The origin of change is mutations in DNA sequence. That is what all of the observations show us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything known is evidence. Everything observed is evidence. No matter how many times I present the evidence it is dismissed as an irrelevancy. Change in species is driven by individual consciousness and behavior not suitability, adaptability, or fitness. Just look around. Look at what has actually happened.

You can't show evidence (EXPERIMENT) that contradicts this observation. Everything you think contradicts it is interpretation and not evidence itself.

Across the board there are broad based (language based) errors in all the soft sciences and now days even cosmology has many aspects of soft science. Don't look at me to tell you what the reality is because I don't know. I just know where to look and how to find it.

I have a dinosaur computer and can't surf this site. Ads jump right into the dialog box and take over. I'll be back when I have a new computer.

No, that is not evidence. Evidence is well defined in the sciences. Scientific evidence are observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. If your idea is not a testable hypothesis at the least then by definition you do not have any evidence for your idea. What reasonable test would show your idea to be wrong?

if you can't answer that question you merely have an ad hoc explanation at best.

 

[oldbadger]

They may not be a big force in the UK, but they are a major one here in the US. They like to get on school boards which choose textbooks, especially in California and Texas. Those two states dominate the market and most textbook companies use their 'standards' for what they publish. That means the crap gets pushed to schools across the US>

I've heard about this. Sometime about last year an RF thread mentioned that influential people in Texas wanted to include both Evolution and the Genesis creation together in some science lesson-plans and many here seemed quite outraged by such an idea. But I liked the idea and I'll tell you why...... when children research for themselves they have more respect for their own personal findings, rather than being told what to think and believe.

Individual Investigation beats Institutional Indoctrination, every time.

Fundamental Christianity is hanging on (somehow) in the US, but it does seem to be slowly waning.......... it's the political extremism which has got tacked into fundamental Christianity which is the real shocker to me.

 

[Audie]

I've heard about this. Sometime about last year an RF thread mentioned that influential people in Texas wanted to include both Evolution and the Genesis creation together in some science lesson-plans and many here seemed quite outraged by such an idea. But I liked the idea and I'll tell you why...... when children research for themselves they have more respect for their own personal findings, rather than being told what to think and believe.

Individual Investigation beats Institutional Indoctrination, every time.

Fundamental Christianity is hanging on (somehow) in the US, but it does seem to be slowly waning.......... it's the political extremism which has got tacked into fundamental Christianity which is the real shocker to me.

When you are right, you are right.

I'd tack on a bit, though, to your idea of teaching genesis.

We cannot very well just to the Christian version,
(hence the outrage, it is picking favourites)
but should do a variety of creation myths.

I'd introduce them as part of a history of thought sort
of thing.

Like say, the way one wcould with atomic theory.

Get into Lucretius, and his observation that a bronze
statue's had at the gate of a city would wear away from
people'd touch. That each person must take away an
incredibly small amount, each time.

His ideas of atoms that are round, or have hooks were
not it, but it was a good try.

Talk about "earth, air, fire, and water"

Lots of good stuff.

 

[Polymath257]

I've heard about this. Sometime about last year an RF thread mentioned that influential people in Texas wanted to include both Evolution and the Genesis creation together in some science lesson-plans and many here seemed quite outraged by such an idea. But I liked the idea and I'll tell you why...... when children research for themselves they have more respect for their own personal findings, rather than being told what to think and believe.

Individual Investigation beats Institutional Indoctrination, every time.

I disagree with this. The reason is that so many of our concepts today have been established by methods that simply cannot be done in a classroom. There is no way, for example, for a high school student to test the atomic theory. There is no way that we can reasonably expect them to come up on their own with the quadratic formula. It took *ages* for the human race as a whole to manage these insights. To expect kids to reach these ideas (especially when the teachers barely understand them) is not just silly, but it guarantees kids with little understanding and a frustration because of that.

Some ideas simply don't come naturally. What will happen instead is that the *naive* explanations will prevail. The kids would, in essence, have to relearn the whole of human intellectual progress. But one of the huge strengths we have as a species is the ability to pass down things we have learned to the next generation. They don't have to make the same mistakes we did. To have them come up with it all on their own almost guarantees they will make those same mistakes every generation and never get past them.

 

[Audie]

I disagree with this. The reason is that so many of our concepts today have been established by methods that simply cannot be done in a classroom. There is no way, for example, for a high school student to test the atomic theory. There is no way that we can reasonably expect them to come up on their own with the quadratic formula. It took *ages* for the human race as a whole to manage these insights. To expect kids to reach these ideas (especially when the teachers barely understand them) is not just silly, but it guarantees kids with little understanding and a frustration because of that.

Some ideas simply don't come naturally. What will happen instead is that the *naive* explanations will prevail. The kids would, in essence, have to relearn the whole of human intellectual progress. But one of the huge strengths we have as a species is the ability to pass down things we have learned to the next generation. They don't have to make the same mistakes we did. To have them come up with it all on their own almost guarantees they will make those same mistakes every generation and never get past them.

He has a good idea to the extent that it can be applied.

 

[oldbadger]

The whole purpose of science is advancement. You can advance science by disproving other ideas.
Your example of tower blocks and fire is poor. It was politics and 'value engineering' driven by politicians that caused the fire in Grenfell Tower. If scientists had been given the correct tools, enough money they would have proved the cladding was ineffective or a fire hazard.
People will follow the money (e.g. climate change) to lie on behalf of science and the likes of Fox News keeps these people in employment.

Hi..........
I don't think that the whole purpose of science is advancement. Whilst science can produce excellent advancements it can also produce WMDs for tyrants, for example.

I can see your point about how Grenfell happened, and I can recognise who bad minds can lie on behalf of science, but that is my point about this thread and 'anti-science' folks. Too many people preen themselves with the title of 'scientist' and also 'Intellectual', it's almost a fashion statement these days......

Already on this thread we have seen members who feel this way, one feels that most civil and mechanical engineers should be titled 'technicians' and that many other 'science' titles are invalid........ valid science is only that which operates under the scientific-method. We have heard about 'Pop science', pseudo-science, soft sciences, and my own 'truth-pill sciences'........ and you yourself have shown that political expedience and cut-price work (claiming to be science?) is yet another deviant.

So much of all this shows that science needs to discipline itself and the others who would hide under its name before it can point fingers at religion (for example). And I have no agenda.......... I don't believe in a literal Genesis.

 

[oldbadger]

I disagree with this. The reason is that so many of our concepts today have been established by methods that simply cannot be done in a classroom. There is no way, for example, for a high school student to test the atomic theory. There is no way that we can reasonably expect them to come up on their own with the quadratic formula. It took *ages* for the human race as a whole to manage these insights. To expect kids to reach these ideas (especially when the teachers barely understand them) is not just silly, but it guarantees kids with little understanding and a frustration because of that.

Some ideas simply don't come naturally. What will happen instead is that the *naive* explanations will prevail. The kids would, in essence, have to relearn the whole of human intellectual progress. But one of the huge strengths we have as a species is the ability to pass down things we have learned to the next generation. They don't have to make the same mistakes we did. To have them come up with it all on their own almost guarantees they will make those same mistakes every generation and never get past them.

Ok........ I get your point about asking kids to investigate Atomic theory, but we were talking about evolution and genesis in contention, or so I thought.

And since the astronomy, physics and maths specialists are in polite professional contention over the initiation of the Universe, such as big-bang, big-bounce, multi-universe, big-chill, remote-singularity-initiation etc etc the lesson plan which offers a debate in the form of evidences from various points of view would offer interest, and I can say that interested children really dig in to subject matter. There may be some scientists who are good teachers and lesson plan writers, but the best that most can be is lecturers, and children do not respond to lecturers.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok........ I get your point about asking kids to investigate Atomic theory, but we were talking about evolution and genesis in contention, or so I thought.

And let's face it. Most kids won't be able to go to a paleontology dig. They won't be able to sequence a gene. They won't be able to conduct studies of comparative anatomy. They might be able to take a field trip to a museum, but I can guarantee they won't be uncovering the bones from the surrounding matrix.

For that matter, even basic anatomy wouldn't be possible via this technique. To expect kids to re-discover the spleen is rather silly, yes?

And since the astronomy, physics and maths specialists are in polite professional contention over the initiation of the Universe, such as big-bang, big-bounce, multi-universe, big-chill, remote-singularity-initiation etc etc the lesson plan which offers a debate in the form of evidences from various points of view would offer interest, and I can say that interested children really dig in to subject matter. There may be some scientists who are good teachers and lesson plan writers, but the best that most can be is lecturers, and children do not respond to lecturers.

But the basic BB model is secure. Anything after about the first millisecond into the current expansion is well studied. And that is where the jumping off point is. And let's face it, the stuff that we do agree on is enough to keep people busy until college, at least.

To 'dig up the subject matter' seems to be the same as 'find out what various people have said'. And, once again, the problem is evaluating the degree of expertise of those saying things. Now, perhaps by late high school that can be expected, but middle school? Definitely not.

 

[ecco]

I've heard about this. Sometime about last year an RF thread mentioned that influential people in Texas wanted to include both Evolution and the Genesis creation together in some science lesson-plans and many here seemed quite outraged by such an idea. But I liked the idea and I'll tell you why...... when children research for themselves they have more respect for their own personal findings, rather than being told what to think and believe.

The problem is that Creationism would not be taught in such a way as to engender research and creative thinking - especially not in Texas. Most children in Texas, old enough to be in an evolution/creationism class, have already had creationism beaten into their brains. The only reason Creos want it taught in schools is to give it a cloak of credibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that Creationism would not be taught in such a way as to engender research and creative thinking - especially not in Texas. Most children in Texas, old enough to be in an evolution/creationism class, have already had creationism beaten into their brains. The only reason Creos want it taught in schools is to give it a cloak of credibility.

And not only that, many teachers in Texas are either afraid to teach evolution or do not accept evolution.

 

[oldbadger]

When you are right, you are right.

I'd tack on a bit, though, to your idea of teaching genesis.

We cannot very well just to the Christian version,
(hence the outrage, it is picking favourites)
but should do a variety of creation myths.

I'd introduce them as part of a history of thought sort
of thing.

Like say, the way one wcould with atomic theory.

Get into Lucretius, and his observation that a bronze
statue's had at the gate of a city would wear away from
people'd touch. That each person must take away an
incredibly small amount, each time.

His ideas of atoms that are round, or have hooks were
not it, but it was a good try.

Talk about "earth, air, fire, and water"

Lots of good stuff.

Absolutely. And if the schooling is in US States, then various Indian traditions could be included.

When we tell youth what and how to think, it doesn't work.

 

[oldbadger]

And let's face it. Most kids won't be able to go to a paleontology dig. They won't be able to sequence a gene. They won't be able to conduct studies of comparative anatomy. They might be able to take a field trip to a museum, but I can guarantee they won't be uncovering the bones from the surrounding matrix.

For that matter, even basic anatomy wouldn't be possible via this technique. To expect kids to re-discover the spleen is rather silly, yes?

They'll be able to witness all of that, go to all of that, do it all, experience it......... because the technologists have given them virtual reality to experience it all, as witnesses. Yesterday morning, because I'd seen an old film the evening before, I walked RIGHT AROUND the site of the Alamo, looking in from various streets and entrances. And then I went inside, viewing the place through other people's camera lenses. Virtually I went there........ whilst drinking tea in Kent, England.

If you tell kids what they can and can't do, they'll do what they think.........

But the basic BB model is secure.

Well the specialists don't see it that way. We've listed their varying opinions about this before. And, by the way, if most children couldn't visit a fossil dig (in reality) and that would render individual investigation out for them, just how were you going to build your lesson plan for the initiation of the universe?

By all means the BB must be included in any such studies, but all of the specialists' opinions would need to be included for the children to consider. Teaching is a totally differing discipline to lecturing.

Anything after about the first millisecond into the current expansion is well studied. And that is where the jumping off point is. And let's face it, the stuff that we do agree on is enough to keep people busy until college, at least.

Professional teaching is not about keeping kids busy, if that were true they could just engage in football or hockey sports (or whatever) the whole time.
Teaching is about introducing 'interest' into kids' hearts and minds. With interest kids can do amazing things....... mostly any 7 year old could teach you and I some brain-banging 'things' about IT, honestly, and that's my guess before I even know you.

To 'dig up the subject matter' seems to be the same as 'find out what various people have said'. And, once again, the problem is evaluating the degree of expertise of those saying things. Now, perhaps by late high school that can be expected, but middle school? Definitely not.

The ranges of intelligence and ability in children vary massively, and the very last kind of education that infant and junior schools (UK terminology there) need is a curriculum based upon the ideas of scientists.... honestly. Lesson plans have to be written to suit classes of up to, say, 30 children and even within individual class levels the pupil's abilities vary.

If you cannot get children INTERESTED then you fail.
Telling kids what to think is educational death. Teach kids HOW TO THINK and they, most of them, can fly......... at their respective levels.