Dan M wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Kevin B. O'Brien >> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 9:57 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Teaching multiple models of science >> >> The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it does >> not meet the minimum standard for scientific theory. A scientific theory >> needs to make testable, falsifiable claims, >> > > OK, no problem there > > > >> and has to pass when the test is done. >> > > I wouldn't put it that way, because there are a wealth of possible future > tests. And theories that have been falsified are still taught in science > class...in fact most physics that is being taught has been falsified....but > survives as special cases of the new theory. > But in that case we don't present it as true, exactly. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion are now presented as acceptable approximations. Nothing wrong with that, it is easier to do the calculations that way than to use General Relativity to calculate orbits, for instance.
And it is quite reasonable to think that at some future point General Relativity will be viewed as a flawed but useful approximation to whatever theory produces better results in whatever odd corner-case comes up that Relativity cannot handle. But when that happens, it will be because the two theories made predictions in that odd corner case, and one of them matched experimental results/observations, and the other did not. >> That is absolutely fundamental, and I have never seen >> anything like that come from a creationist. They cannot distinguish >> between a theory and an hypothesis (what they call a theory is in fact >> an hypothesis), so I doubt they will ever get there. >> > > In a sense I have, in the sense that I've seen theories that are falsified > scientific theories. Scientific theories are models of observation. A few > work, most don't. In the process of teaching that, one could bring up > astrology, creationism, etc. as well as physics and biology and ask which > ones are valid scientific theories. That was my point....it's good to have > both valid and invalid scientific theories considered when teaching a course > on science, because having both allows the student to see what the criterion > is for a valid scientific theory. "Which of these things is not like the > others?" works. :-) > In a class that is about how science develops, that could well make sense. I taught a class some years ago on History of Science, and that is something I tried to bring into it. But I would (and did) insist that we look at this process in terms of how science makes these judgments, and that is by making falsifiable hypotheses and testable predictions, and then doing the test. If we don't do that, I don't think we are doing science. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "There are some experiences in life which should not be demanded twice from any man, and one of them is listening to the Brahms Requiem." -- George Bernard Shaw _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
