Well said, and quite correct. I also enjoyed continental drift when it was a hypothesis, along with many others since confirmed or discarded, and the panoply of the currently undecided, including the nature of dark matter and dark energy, and the Riemann Hypothesis. I particularly enjoy notions that have been discarded and then revived in a completely different form.
For example, the Olbers paradox says that in an infinite universe, we should see a star in every direction, so that the sky should be as hot as the surface of a star. This was abandoned with the discovery of the expanding but finite universe, but has come back in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation The CMBR flew free at the recombination temperature of protons and electrons in an opaque plasma to form transparent hydrogen gas. That recombination temperature is, not coincidentally, the surface temperature of normal stars like the Sun (but not of giants, supergiants, and dwarfs). At that point, a few hundred thousand years into the expansion of the universe, the radiation was at approximately 3000 K. After further expansion by a redshift of about 1000, that radiation is at a blackbody temperature of 2.725 K, and is extremely uniform in every direction from everywhere. Similarly, Michelson and Morley definitively demolished the idea of a luminiferous ether by demonstating that no Earthly experiment could give the velocity of Earth's motion relative to Newton's absolute space. But it turns out that we can measure our velocity relative to the CMBR by measuring its tiny red and blueshifts in various directions. From the CMB data it is seen that our local group of galaxies (the galactic cluster that includes the Solar System's Milky Way Galaxy) appears to be moving at 627 ± 22 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB (also called the CMB rest frame) in the direction of galactic longitude l = 276 ± 3°, b = 30 ± 3°.[62] This motion results in an anisotropy of the data (CMB appearing slightly warmer in the direction of movement than in the opposite direction)[63]. The standard interpretation of this temperature variation is a simple velocity redshift and blueshift due to motion relative to the CMB. Periods requiring restraint have also occurred in mathematics, as when Newton and Leibniz couldn't prove their calculus correct, a problem that persisted for two centuries, or the shorter period of the paradoxes in logic and set theory. We couldn't claim to have answers, but we also couldn't just toss out useful methods. In my time at Yale, Fred Fitch and Abraham Robinson were still working on ramifications of those problems. Fitch created a provably consistent logic and set theory without Excluded Middle, and Robinson extended non-standard arithmetic with infinities to non-standard analysis with infinitesimals. This turns out to be a much easier way to do calculus than the conventional δ-ε method, once you get past the logical preliminaries. On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 01:04, Jan Visser <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ed. > > I entirely agree with your view that what is going to be offered on WE > should help learners acquire the ability to make appropriate judgments about > the validity of what they read, listen to or view. I value the work you are > doing to make it happen. You are right also that this should be “a > fundamental part of education” in general. An important part of making the > judgment is also the ability to recognize that you are not yet ready to make > the judgment. In other words, you should be able to hold yourself from > jumping to a conclusion, one way or the other, when you are not yet ready. > > > > When I said “I am assuming that the WE audience has insufficient prior > knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves” I was simply implying > that the above work must still be done. But even then I think it is a > responsibility on the part of the WE community (and educators in general) > not to present side-by-side the real story and some alternative option that, > for reasons that have nothing to do with the available evidence, some people > want to be considered as well. This is for instance the case of those who > want evolution and creationism to be taught side-by-side (a phenomenon more > prominent in the US than in other parts of the world). I don’t call such > things ‘controversies’ but rather ‘pseudo-controversies.’ They are the kind > of cases about which I heard Richard Dawkins once say: “You don’t invite a > reproductive biologist to a debate with a proponent of the stork theory of > child birth.” > > > > The above is different from being exposed, as a learner, to perfectly > reasonable hypotheses that have not yet been sufficiently tested. As a young > adolescent learner, my geology teacher (a devoutly religious man who taught > us the facts of evolution—no controversy as far as he was concerned) once > lent me a copy of Wegener’s book about that author’s continental drift > hypothesis (this was around 1955, before the work on paleomagnetism had > started accumulating solid data in favor of the hypothesis). My teacher told > me that the book explained a theory that was not yet proven, but interesting > all the same. I read the book with great interest, acutely aware of my > feeling about ‘how nice it would be if this were indeed true.’ It took a > couple more years, until after I had meanwhile graduated from my school, > before the scientific community was convinced about Wegener’s views. I owe > it to this teacher to have had, as a young adolescent, the experience of > getting excited about something for which there was as yet no conclusive > evidence, having had to exercise the discipline of keeping myself from > accepting it as a theory while considering it a beautiful hypothesis. In > retrospect, I consider this a highly educational experience. I guess it > requires a teacher to be part of the process of a student’s interaction with > given content for such an experience to become highly educational and thus > profoundly influential. > > > > Jan > > > > -- > > Jan Visser, Ph.D. > > President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute > > E-mail: [email protected] > > Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev > > Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:02 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Denialism (was Re: [WikiEducator] Phil's Rants) > > > > Excellent overview. My ony concern is where you write, "I am assuming > > that the WE audience has insufficient prior > >> knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves." Students and >> untrained teachers in developing countries? Inadequately trained teachers in >> developed countries? People coming into our community? > > > > I want the ability to judge science vs. pseudoscience debates to be a > > fundamental part of education. I don't expect anybody to get to the > > point of judging science vs. science debates, which even scientists > > cannot do until the needed data arrive. > > > > The fallacies of pseudoscientific debate are not too many to grasp. > > They include cherry-picking data, selective quotation, refusing to > > provide sources, failing to do their own research, pretending to be > > greater in number than they are, demanding proof, accusing scientists > > and others of massive conspiracy, claiming that the slightest error > > invalidates a whole field of research, and others. I can explain each, > > and provide detailed examples. I intend at some point to get a book > > project going on this subject at an appropriate grade level. > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 05:08, Jan Visser <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have no time at present to check the detail of all the information > >> provided in newspaper articles and am particularly unable, when reading a > >> newspaper report, to check the quality and veracity of the interpretation >> of > >> what actually happened. > > > > I can provide a guide to the literature, the attacks on the science, > > and the reporting, but because of some hostility to me doing that, I > > won't to begin with. I have created two new pages, one on Global > > Warming, and one on Evolution, listing a selection of books and DVDs > > on each subject in alphabetical ordero all available on Amazon, and > > most with Look Inside browsing provided. I invite a discussion, where > > we can play out a version of what we hope to get schoolchildren to do. > > > >> I do know, however, and have evidence to back it up, that the scientific > >> community is quite capable of identifying breaches of ethics, reporting > >> them, and taking appropriate measures to repair the damage. One need but >> go > >> through the past several years of Nature and Science to find the various > >> instances in which published papers were retracted, sometimes at the >> request > >> of the researchers themselves when they found that something had gone >> wrong > >> in carrying out their research, sometimes following the discovery of > >> deliberate fraud. I know few other areas of human endeavor where such > >> rigorous self-control within the community exists. Typically, newspapers, > >> whatever their high quality from on investigative journalism point of view > >> may be, should not be considered reliable sources for validation. The >> final > >> validation of recognized error or established committed fraud is still >> best > >> done by the scientific community itself. I thus look forward to reading > >> about the outcome of such processes in the relevant scientific literature. > > > > Well said. > > > >> On the basis of what I know so far (and knew already before this > >> conversation started), there is reason to be alert to the possibility that > >> the mix of politics, science, and corporate interest that surrounds >> climate > >> change, in addition to the propensity in humans (members of the general > >> public) to wish to believe what they already believe, may potentially lead > >> to biased research and even fraud (as well as to advocacy that is based on > >> erroneous interpretation of scientific findings and conclusions). > > > > I would include other factors, which I will not mention here in order > > not to distract anyone from the main point. > > > >> Alertness > >> to such dangers has always been a key ingredient of the collective mindset > >> within the scientific community. In some cases the danger is more >> prominent > >> and more obviously present than in others. Investigative journalism plays >> a > >> role, though, just as it does in politics. It is sometimes at the origin >> of > >> identifying fraud. Besides, newspapers, when they have good science > >> reporters on their staff, also play a great role in bringing the results >> of > >> research and their societal implications to the attention of their > >> readership. So, wait till the Times reports on what eventually appears in > >> the relevant literature and then check the newspaper report against the > >> cited literature if, as a scientist, you want to help the public >> understand > >> the issues well and are thus willing to write letters to the editor to >> back > >> up or challenge the reporting. > > > > We must ask why and to what extent the Times can be considered > > authoritative, given that it makes mistakes and has a point of view. > > This will be part of a more general evaluation of sources. > > > >> Validity of what is offered in an open environment like WE is very >> important > >> from an educational point of view. Users of WE must be able to trust that > >> the utmost has been done to ensure the validity of what they get offered. >> In > >> saying so, I am assuming that the WE audience has insufficient prior > >> knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves. If that assumption is > >> wrong, then we should perhaps clearly state upfront (on the WE home page) > >> what we expect our target audience to be capable of. We should certainly > >> have internal agreement on it. This may be worth some debate, if it is not > >> already entirely obvious. > > > > I began to address these issues above, but we will have to say much > > more about it. > > > >> Jan > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Jan Visser, Ph.D. > >> > >> President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute > >> > >> E-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev > >> > >> Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- > > Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin > > Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation. > > The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. > > http://www.earthtreasury.org/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "WikiEducator" group. > To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org > To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] -- Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. http://www.earthtreasury.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
