The First Rule of Teaching Science (Synopsis)

I'm so happy you made this post, not because of viral things twisting what science is, but because just today I came across this article on BBC

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150409-can-science-ever-explain-everyt…

while overall it's not a bad article, it does have certain portions which are lacking and clearly show the person writing it doesn't really know what it's about. I do not want to slant the author, a quick search online shows her bio site where it says "...I have degrees from the University of Sydney, in psychology, science and international business".. But the article has parts which I really dislike. such as:

1. while talking about relativity: "Really heavy objects like planets, or really fast-moving ones, can distort space-time". English is not my native language.. but what is "can" doing in that sentence? EVERYTHING distorts spacetime to a certain extent, period! Not "can".. That sounds like they can, but they might not, it's optional, depending on situation.. That is very very wrong!

2. "This, according to Einstein, is why gravity pulls objects towards each other. This is a deeply weird idea. But physicists are convinced that it is true." - physicists are convinced? ... Again.. a very peculiar choice of words... Why not say.. we.. the people.. humanity... It almost cries for an argument against ... those physicists...

3. "By weighing light rays in a vacuum tube, they found extraordinarily light, negatively-charged particles. This was the first discovery of a subatomic particle: the electron."... weighing light in vacuum? Really? That's an interesting representation of how electron was discovered. She could have went to wiki and read how it was discovered. Cathode tubes aren't vacuum tubes..

4. "Einstein never really believed in quantum theory" - Einstein didn't believe it's a complete theory because of the probabilities. This is a very different thing then not believing alltogether

5. "But the issue is, the two theories (GR/QM) are not compatible, so they can't both be right." .. Wow.. this one is just... wow...

6. "Black holes are a particular problem. They are massive so general relativity applies, but they are also small so quantum mechanics applies too." ... small in comparison to stars yes... but hardly small as protons or neutrons or any other QM scales... QM doesn't apply to black halls because they are "small".

.. and so on and so on..

And this type of "scientific" journalism happens every day all over the world. No wonder general public can't make heads or tails from it. If you are too lazy to learn and do some serious research about the topic of your journalism, then don't write about it. Much less harm. Not only do you look silly, but you are misinforming the public.

It was pandering to the religious, SL, who believe that their book tells them everything forever, and don't like the fact that science does a better job of doing the explaining, but doesn't need their myths to do it.

So that piece is another unearned carrot to the NOMA apologetics.

in psychology, science and international business

The first and last areas are almost as far removed from anything involving hard science as one can get. (One of my son's two majors is Classics: that might be a bit farther removed.) You do have to wonder what the 'science" portion she claims really involved.
Reading through the article it seems to me to be written by someone who's had enough exposure to know the basic terms and to whom they belong, but not any of the finer detail. She's writing to sound "sciencey", but doesn't have the background to fill it out.

I do agree SL, that word "can" sticks out more obviously than my dislocated thumb did this weekend - and I'm not a physicist, merely a statistician (which, some would say, is also quite far removed from science).

@ Wow
It CAN be that :) On the other hand, I do believe that she wrote the article with best intentions, it's just that she is not competent or informed enough to write it decently. Which illustrates a bigger problem. The request probably came from some editor and then it was passed to her because she has "degree in science".

@ Dean
What I find unprofessional is that you don't see biologists writing about stock exchange, or chemists writing about fine points in political relations between i.e. african states... for obvious reasons. So why would someone with a degree in psychology and business accept to write about finer points in particle and astrophysics.

The second strange thing to me is (not her fault).. what is a degree in science?? What do you do for 4 years to get that? Learn that there is this thing called "science" that some people do it? or what? I never heard of that before.

name got cut in last post.. sorry

Wow is thumping religion again on yet another article...sigh...

Ah, he snaps, but the big bad troll doesn't get Billy this time!

Baaaaah!

You're a hoot, Bri. Completely clueless and ignorant of it.

I have heard of many discoveries, but the discovery of the dual nature of light lead to many other discoveries .... how lovely is the world of science.

Who could have thought that light can behave as both the wave and particle?

I give credits to Niels Bohr for his contribution in the dual nature of light . Who do you give credit to?

@ John Nyatshambe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek

Van Leeuwenhoek ( lay ven huck is closest) is one of the most under-rated scientists of all time. His invention of the best process for creating microscopic lenses. He was the first person to detect single-cell organisms, which if you think about it not only has transformed medicine but physics and biology as well.

Without his work there would be no DNA studies. And our understanding of micro-particles such as electrons, protons, boson, etc. would be nil.

Oh, and like all scientists in the 1200-1900 period he was also very religious.
They see no contradiction between God and science, but instead see science as the process for understanding language of God.

Well, that doesn't prove they're right. Aristotle did a lot for science and he wasn't a Christian.

Moreover, for much of the 1200-1900 period, you were either going to be killed or just never given an education if you weren't Christian in Europe.

God might exist, fair enough. But one that dictated or inspired the bible definitely did not.

I might also add that those scientists who were religious were not successful as scientists because of their religion, but rather in many cases despite their religion. Religious belief often led to conclusions that were in contrast to the scientific ones. The best scientists were the ones who were able to set aside their religious convictions and go where the evidence led them.

A good example of this is heliocentric theory. It is true that the Catholic Church suppressed heliocentric theory, but another reason that it failed to gain widespread acceptance for some time was that when it was first proposed, it was not actually a better theory than the widely accepted geocentric theory. The problem with it was that everyone "knew" that the planets "had" to move in circles, whether they moved around the sun or not. The existing theory proposed epicycles, or additional circular motions of the planets, and actually predicted the positions of the planets quite accurately. The heliocentric theory gave incorrect predictions of planetary positions.

Why did the planets "have" to move in circles? Well, a circle was considered a "perfect" shape, and it was not conceivable that God would have made the universe with the planets moving in a less than perfectly shaped orbit. It was up to Kepler to finally abandon this idea of circular orbits and propose his laws of planetary motion. Those laws allowed for correct prediction of planetary positions and greatly strengthened heliocentric theory. Newton then put the whole system on firm ground when he demonstrated that his gravitational law implied Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

The point is that progress was made by religious scientists who eventually abandoned what they thought they knew from their religious beliefs and developed their ideas without reference to religion.

Okay ... you guys are taking a great article on science and taking it way off topic.

But using what the author pointed out .. tell the TRUTH.

So to WOW ... they weren't right maybe ... but THEY made the scientific method.

to Sean T "The point is that progress was made by religious scientists who eventually abandoned what they thought they knew from their religious beliefs and developed their ideas without reference to religion." no stealing the previous person's name WOW ... THAT is an untruth so you proved the author's point.

Like the Cartesian method -- you should algebra without it sucks and without algebra you have no calculus or physics as we know it? Maybe you should read DesCartes belief on God -- it is called dualism.

Newton? Spent the last years of his life figuring out the age of the planet according to Genesis.
But yet ... you can divine intent from people you have not read, studied, or knew.

Remember : Science is a tool. It is a methodology. Science says nothing. People who use science ( we call them scientists ) are the ones saying something based upon how they interpret the data.
Then their interpretation is tested with new data.
It is a Meme. A mental construct. That is it. And that is all science EVER will be.
If the concept of science can be said to have an existence, then God exists for the very reason that people put faith in Him.
If God does not exist because there is no height, weight, depth or force to measure showing God, then Science does not exist either.
As far as tools go, a hammer has more existence than science does.

This is a key point.
Science is "intentionless" ... intent can NOT be brought into it -- this is why science performs so poorly in "social sciences" such as "political science".

You take the methodology and apply it to a political event and woops it doesn't come out the way you expected.
This is because trying to divine the voters INTENT doesn't work. We try every day -- in courts -- and we periodically sendinnecent people to jail because we cannot truly divine another person's intent.

What is the scientific method good for?
At it's simplest "If A then B"
So when we observe A we can predict B will happen.
If we observe B we can predict A happened.

When you add intent ( and God is essentially Intent personified ) ...
you get
If A then B if C wants B to happen. If B doesn't happen then C didn't want it to happen.

Now where things get messy is :

If A then B
Unless C is involved with intent then D and E combined with C causes B.

( An example of that is element X will exist if two black holes collide. Or if a scientists decides to create this mile long atom collider that ... )

Tha above messy statement can accurately described the Planet Earth ( and maybe other planets but for now all we KNOW is Earth ) where there is a crap load of intent.

Just like non-euclidean geometrybetter describes the universe as a whole than Euclidean geometry does ( which means that NO Paul -- parallel lines actually DO cross each other in the real world ).
It is messy but true nontheless.

And despite the fact we can not measure or divine intent properly ... it can be seen that intent DOES have the ability to cause things to happen.

So yes Virginia, Science can not explain everything because the moment you add intent it gets sloppy.

And sadly, the interpretation of data, using the scientific method has intent involved by the PEOPLE dpoing the interpretation.

I trust science -- not so much the scientists.
And I would say the author sort of agrees, otherwise he wouldn't have written this article in the first place.

But more to the author's point -- I really do not trust people claiming science discredits anything else, because they are lying.
And liars do not practice science.

"If God does not exist because there is no height, weight, depth or force to measure showing God, then Science does not exist either."

Nobody is claiming science (notice normal people don't refer to it as an entity, merely a process) is any type of being. People claim their god is an entity.
Your discussion is worthless.

Wow, you make this website lose credibility by even taking part in a creationist debate on the message boards. Everyone except for the few religious nutjobs you're arguing with agree with you. Yet, you act like you're so smart that you've figured out that religion is irrational fact-denying. Wow, someone promote this 14-year-old to President! He's only one of the 99.8% of people on this website that are unapologetically science-minded. Move over, Einstein! We have a new benchmark for intelligence! LOL...dumbass...

Yes, bruin, you're wrong.

Okay … you guys are taking a great article on science and taking it way off topic.

Given it was you bringing up god, what bit is "off topic"? Or is this just a way to go "Nooooo! Don't argue with meeeee!!!!!!"?

they weren’t right maybe … but THEY made the scientific method.

No they were wrong, and they did not make the scientific method.

Maybe you should read DesCartes belief on God — it is called dualism.

Cartesian dualism isn't a belief of god, and it's unproven conjecture that has no evidence or rationality to it.

Maybe you should read science books, not mythology.

Newton? Spent the last years of his life figuring out the age of the planet according to Genesis.

Yes, also trying to discover the Philosopher's stone via alchemy. Newton isn't always right, so this claim is empty.

But yet … you can divine intent from people you have not read, studied, or knew.

Just like you. If wrong for us, wrong for you. Right? Wrong? Choose one.

It is a Meme. A mental construct. That is it. And that is all religiion EVER will be.

There you go. ENTIRELY as valid. And vastly more supported by evidence.

If the concept of science can be said to have an existence, then God exists for the very reason that people put faith in Him.

Since it doesn't exist as anything other than a meme, IOW not existence, then you say that God doesn't exist.

Which is less religious than my claim!

Unless C is involved with intent then D and E combined with C causes B.

But insisting that C is involved has never worked with ANY A, B, ...Z. Lightning? Disease? Earthquakes? Thunder? ALL proscribed the actions of God. All wrong.

And despite the fact we can not measure or divine intent properly … it can be seen that intent DOES have the ability to cause things to happen.

I intend to move the box. It doesn't move merely by intent, though, I still have to push it.

Intent cannot cause things to happen. Your intent may be WHY it happened, but the mechanism of making it happen is still physical.

And it's that physical thing that makes things happen.

Science can not explain everything because the moment you add intent it gets sloppy.

Nope, it doesn't.

I call Hitchen's Razor.

I trust science — not so much the scientists.

IOW "I only trust a result I like, one that agrees with a position I WANT to take."

Hitler did the same thing with Darwin. Look where Christian Faith, Dogma, and only accepting a science that they prefer, no matter how wrong or unsupported it may be, will get you.

I really do not trust people claiming science discredits anything else, because they are lying.

No we're not.

Hitchen again.

And liars do not practice science.

But they DO practice religion. It's a great scam to get people to just accept whatever BS you feed them and bilk them. And for some, all that they need is to feel special. Lying toward that end is fine. They deserve a free pass because they're special.

Science can not explain everything because the moment you add intent it gets sloppy.

Nope, it doesn’t.

I call Hitchen’s Razor.

I really do not trust people claiming science discredits anything else, because they are lying.

No we’re not.

Hitchen again.

Hitchen's razor is the onus of proof is on the one making the more extreme claim ...

A ) WHo decides what is the more extreme belief?
You? Because you call hitchen's razor?
now true -- it has come to mean the burden of proof or onus in a debate lies with the claim-maker, and if he or she does not meet it, the opponent does not need to argue against the unfounded claim.

But anyone who tries to pull that in college? flunks.

B ) Hitchen's ( like all philosophical rules ) is not a a LAW .. it is a RAZOR.
Do you know what a razor means in philosophy? Maybe you should read more.
It is a "rule of thumb" that simply. It is NOT a law. It does not over-rule anything. It certainly does not prove you are right.

You do NOT get to stomp your feet and say "I disagree" then call Hitchen's Razor and smugly sit there thinking you won the argument the other person has to prove you wrong.

Dawkins tried that against agnostics and got crushed -- why? Because he tried to claim that the onus of "lack of decision" was a less credible position than "lack of God:

But just for you fun ... let us take
" I really do not trust people claiming science discredits anything else, because they are lying.

No we’re not."

no you are not what?
Not claiming science discredits something?
Or not lying?

If you can't coherently state what you are calling Hitchen's on -- you can't call hitchen's.
Which goes to show again, your lack of a formal education.
Reinforcing the author's point that not only can scientists not lie -- wannabes should not apply until they get a good education.

BTW -- I never gave religious liars a free pass.
I give no one a free pass.
Human being are pretty scummy things -- I have seen buses stopped and children taken off only to have half of them let back on, the half whose names were spelled ending in a 'c' instead of 'ch' as in Vukovich.

People lie -- pretty much everyone.
And the one you tend to lie to the most? Is yourself.
And for that if you try to claim Hitchen's I would respond that you need to speak with a Psychiatrists. Not for treatment but because every single psychiatrist will tell you the same thing. People lie to themselves almost non-stop.

I really do not trust people.
Which of course -- why I do not trust scientists anymore than other people.
Not because I agree with the science I like -- but because I believe people are pretty much basically scum who will slaughter children based upon the spelling of their name.

I certainly do not trust people who try to elevate science to a religion -- and in your entire reply that is the one thing you almost got right.
Liars DO practice religion -- even when they try to pretend they are doing science.

And you come off as someone who is trying to spout religious dogma.
Not someone who trusts science, but someone who wants to hijack science to bolster the faith he has chosen to believe in.

What I find unprofessional is that you don’t see biologists writing about stock exchange, or chemists writing about fine points in political relations between i.e. african states… for obvious reasons. So why would someone with a degree in psychology and business accept to write about finer points in particle and astrophysics.

Because they think they can? If you look at her CV she lists a fairly extensive list of work in reporting: with her "science" background she may believe that she has the two ingredients needed to make the complex available to the masses.

The second strange thing to me is (not her fault).. what is a degree in science?? What do you do for 4 years to get that? Learn that there is this thing called “science” that some people do it? or what? I never heard of that before.

I found the following as well: her psychology degree is her science education. I suspected as much but wasn't sure.
It seems that she has a math minor: since her majors were in psych and business I will go out on a limb and say it had just enough classes to qualify as a minor while getting her through some basic applied stat courses, with no serious math (like a major in math or stat would have taken).

EDUCATION

University of Sydney, Australia Jan 2005- Dec 2009

Science (Honours) (Psychology)
Commerce (International Business and Finance)
– Minors: Philosophy, Mathematics

Hitchen’s razor is the onus of proof is on the one making the more extreme claim …

Nope.

It is "That which is stated without evidence can be discarded without evidence".

I have less need to have evidence because I am merely rejecting your claim, for which you have no evidence, only your claim.

You do NOT get to stomp your feet and say “I disagree”

Yes I DO.

Please stop stomping your feet and going "YOU HAVE TO PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!!".

no you are not what?

You said we were lying when we say science discredits $SOMETHING. When I reply "No we don't", why do you not know what I'm saying "No we don't" to?

I believe people are pretty much basically scum who will slaughter children based upon the spelling of their name.

You're people. You therefore believe you are scum who will slaughter children.

I'm a person who does not believe that, therefore I am not scum who will slaughter children.

Just because you are good because you'll be punished for not doing so by the imaginary police officer, you are probably right about you.

I do not. I get my morality not from fear of an evil monster who will go epically medieval on your ass but because, this being the only life we have, it is unfair for me to make it end or unpleasant for others as much as possible.

You think you're scum, therefore I will agree with you.

Do not foist your foibles on others so you can feel better about yourself.

I certainly do not trust people who try to elevate science to a religion

The only one doing so here is you, dearie. Again with the projection.

And you come off as someone who is trying to spout religious dogma.

Projection again.

Not someone who trusts science, but someone who wants to hijack science to bolster the faith he has chosen to believe in.

That would be you, again.

And you do it for others too, such as Newton and "anyone who did something sciencey over 700 years that wasn't in the Middle Easy, because I don't like THEIR religion, it's false and bad, so pre-1200 when the Muslim world was massively ahead of Europe doesn't count! Because!".

no you are not what?
...
If you can’t coherently state what you are calling Hitchen’s on

Since I was not supplying, nor even implying I supplied my answer from a Hitchen's Razor, since the claim was *I* do not, and I know what I do, there's no need for me to just disagree, I have absolute knowledge of me. You, despite having made claims, have none. Therefore since you do not know what went on, you can hardly "just for you fun" and demand I show why I applied Hitchen's when I didn't.

I don't understand what is supposed to be wrong about the first animation of the solar system. They look like they're showing exactly the same thing to me, but rendered from different perspectives.

@ Mitch #21

you can check the site of the person who made the first animation (link beside the image), see what he claims, and then google "vortex solar system debunked" .. or similar.. and read why it is wrong.

No CHrome, you have made my point for me with the example you cited. First of all, Descartes did NOT develop algebra. Algebra was around long before Descartes came around. Descartes invented analytical geometry, which showed that algebra and geometry were mathematically equivalent in the sense that any theorem provable in one is also provable in the other. In any case, though, Descartes' mathematical work had NOTHING to do with his religious belief. The same work could have been done by an atheist, a Muslim or a Hindu.

In fact, a good argument could be made that without the contributions of the Hindus and Muslims, Descartes would never have had a chance to develop analytical geometry. Consider the etymology of the term "algebra" for instance. Now, where do you suppose that term came from. Let me write it a bit differently for a hint - Al gebra. That's right, it's an Arabic word. Why do you suppose that the term for a major branch of mathematics comes from an Arabic term? Could it be because it was developed in the Muslim world, perhaps? Also, why is it, do you suppose, that the number system we use now is known as Hindu-Arabic numerals? I'd say that development was pretty important, wouldn't you? Try doing long division using the Roman numerals that were in widespread use in Europe prior to the 16th century if you don't think so. Those developments were necessary precursors to Descartes' work, and they were made by non-Christians. I don't think it's a stretch to say that analytical geometry too is independent of Christianity.

Great post and a very important topic.

But I do have a nit to pick: The "void in space" isn't a Bok Globule. It is a Dark Nebula. Bok Globules are MUCH smaller and have a protostar inside.

Chrome,

I might add that Descartes' philosophy was almost equally independent of his religion, and he really only used God as kind of an escape hatch to get out of a conclusion that he really didn't want to reach. If you are familiar with his philosophy, his approach was to determine what exactly it was that he could know for certain. He started by looking at everything he could see, hear, smell, taste or feel. He realized, though, that sometimes we dream about sensory perception and that those perceptions seem quite real at the time. He concluded that there was actually no way he could know for sure that he wasn't dreaming about everything around him. He went on with this program until he reached the conclusion that the only thing he could be totally certain of was that he existed. (Hence, "I think, therefore I am").

Now, so far as that goes, it's a reasonably valid epistemology. It's not a particularly convincing or useful one, though. If Descartes had followed his argument to its logical conclusion and stuck by it, Descartes should have been an atheist. After all, if only his own existence was certain, by what logic could he conclude that God existed. Descartes was unsatisfied with his conclusion, however, and engaged in some special pleading to escape it. He decided that since he could conceive of an all-powerful God, that God must actually exist. He then concluded that God must be deceiving him if everything he could see around him was not really there. Since God is good, it could not be true that God was deceiving him, so he could then be sure that everything around him actually does exist.

What are your guys thoughts on the continuity of the universe considering its rapidly increasing rate of expansion? 13242033.

@ wow
Not someone who trusts science, but someone who wants to hijack science to bolster the faith he has chosen to believe in.

That would be you, again.

Note -- no discussion of God in the article.
No discussion of God in the posts above you.

That is what is called in blogging and posts a "hijack"

Now it was YOU who decided to try to hijack the thread.
It was me who obliged you.

But YOU did in FACT -- hijack the thread -- and science of the thread to make a derogatory comment.

By the way -- you misunderstand me as well. I am fairly agnostic.

Science MUST be agnostic.
The moment you allow theists or atheists to try to use science to rationalize their views,. they WILL hijack it.

( Same is true of politics only worse as they will hijack the science to gain power not caring about truth, but then one of the main issues of the "establishment" of churches is still this same thing, the politicians hijack the faith to give them more power ).

Science must divest itself of any position on God -- existence or non-existence. It is about Facts and facts only and how to evaluate them.
The moment someone tries to utilize science to defend their Atheism ( or Theism ) -- that person needs to be ostracized.
The moment someone tries to use science to promote their personal feeling on how our political system should act. That person needs to be ostracized.

Because in both cases, ultimately their INTENT to foist OPINIONS on others corrupts science. ANd allows people to cherry pick truths.

Oh ... and you do not get to define Hitchen's RAzor -- Hitchens does.
Use the definition in wiki or the dictionary --
I google " “That which is stated without evidence can be discarded without evidence”. I get one citation
This blog.
Which implies you do not know what you are talking about.

meh -- I will not further comment because for YOU Wow I call Alder's Razor
""what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating" ... neither one of us are going to agree with the other -- and neither one of us can come up with an experiment to prove our view.

Which BTW -- is an added reason why science should NEVER be used in the discussion of existence/non-existence of God.
Alder's Razor -- you will not convince anybody from either side because you cannot devise an experiment to settle it.

Note — no discussion of God in the article.

You're telling ME this?????

Piss off.

YOU brought god up. Post number 9 you moron. Co-opting science to make christians "brilliant, lovely people without whom we'd have no science!".

Oh … and you do not get to define Hitchen’s RAzor — Hitchens does.

Really? Then you're going to link to him saying what it is, right?

Use the definition in wiki or the dictionary —

Oh, no, you won't.

Chrome
:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

I don't think you looked very hard.