The Conservapedia: If Wiki is too scientific for your simple religious mind.

[Ait'al]

Maybe the native americans didn't use the wheel. So what. That is atleast interesting to think about. Who else would have brought that up. Depending on what you are trying to study that could bring up alot of interesting areas to go into. If you were studying native american culture or other aspect of their cultures. To say they went how many thousands of years and never apprently seemed like they needed the wheel. Or some of them did(assuming that is the case) is something interesting and a reason to start studying something. So it is perfectly useful information.

And just to derail this. Why is the argument of what to teach in science class about evolution. When was it ever scientific? It's one things to bring it up, like any other theory, but the nature of a theory is that it is a theory. So why not do what we should do about the theories of gravity and teach them as unknown information. As is we don't know why it happens, or even if what we call it has anything to do with reality, or if it technicaly exists (We know things fall as we define it with langauge. But we don not know the reason or interaction that makes it happen. Unless I am mistaken. Which could easily be the case!!). So This whole thing is a mistake, and is wrong simply because they are zealots and teach any theory as being scientific and not teaching it in perspective. Problem solved. Stop letting "evolutionist" teach science since they are outwordly biased and hence unscientific. That subtle lv of biasedness makes you dangerously unscientific and stupid. So we just go back reconstruct info on real life. The fact taht we don't know. And start teaching why people think things stop trying to say wether they are right or wrong since it goes against the point of science and leave it all alone after that. Isn't the point of science classes in highschool just to introduce you to science as a whole. Not to indoctrinate into any specifific beleif about specific theories or wether they are right or wrong? So whose correct then?

[Rbstr]

Continuing the proud tradition of making no sence.

[Ait'al]

Which part? And I haven't slept much in 3 or 4 days from the flu.

[Baneblade]

I doubt that will go far in convincing him that you have a point.

[Infernus]

Theories of gravitation.


You mean:

Originally Posted by http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

I AM NOT A "THEORY" YOU SHMUCK!!

[Lartnev]

As far as I can tell, Ait'al is arguing that since the Theory of Evolution is a theory it shouldn't be taught in school as a certainty. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but one answer is that a lot of science is taught as certainty to make it easier for children/students to understand.... no doubt makes it easier to mark too

[Infernus]

So, by the same logic... Ait'al is arguing that the foundations of the sciences shouldn't be taught.

Pythagorean Theorem?

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

so this is a theorem, that in every test case so far has proven true.

By destroying that you basically annihilate trigonometry and calculus, like totally. Sin, Cos, Tan would no longer work properly; derivatives would be hard as fuck, I won't even touch on integrals.

[Rbstr]

Inf is completely correct. Even math is based upon theory, especially calculus, which is integral(pardon that pun, wow) to basically all of our understanding of physical mechanics.

1+1=2 is not truth, it may for all we know add to 6 tomorrow at 5:03 am.
We teach is that way because there is the entirety of the human existence backs up that equation.

If it ever were to not equal 2 then we'd have to change that.

The same goes for evolution and against ID "theory." Evolution is essentially the backbone of modern biological study, and has a large body of evidence. evidence against it is very scarce, and the theories of evolution account for the perceived inconsistencies. If you could show that evolution was completely off base with real hard observable evidence, we'd throw it out.

ID has no evidence, and no way to prove that it is false. That makes it completely unsuited to any kind of scientific education.

[Lartnev]

First of all, I did say my interpretation of Ait'al's reply was "not taught as certainty" rather than "not taught at all".

Secondly I think maths would be a seperate thing all together anyway. Mathematics is based on logic and so 1+1=2 will always hold because we have defined it so. However the sticky point is whether that holds true in the physical world. Maths can be taught with certainty, physical mechanics technically can't. But we don't really care that there's a infinitesimal chance that it might not hold true tomorrow at 5.03am and so we might as well teach it as fact (at least until tomorrow at 5.03am ).

The theory of evolution is different because it is based on the interpretation of available evidence. As Rbstr says, one day we might find evidence which changes the understanding of evolution, but it's only a possibility.

In short I can see Ait'al's point but I think life's too short to teach it to the masses in any other way.

P.S. How did we ever get onto this deep philosophical discussion anyhow!?

[Ait'al]

Originally Posted by Infernus

So, by the same logic... Ait'al is arguing that the foundations of the sciences shouldn't be taught.

Pythagorean Theorem?

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

so this is a theorem, that in every test case so far has proven true.

By destroying that you basically annihilate trigonometry and calculus, like totally. Sin, Cos, Tan would no longer work properly; derivatives would be hard as fuck, I won't even touch on integrals.

Phythagorean theorem isn't science. It is mathematics. And the basis of science is, In an immensly oversimplified veiw. a general logic to figure things out and a way of thinking(AKA how to properly look for answers about something withough letting your own stupidity get in the way. And what it takes to not let it get in the way.). Not threories. Thats my point. It the idea of thinking scientifically or the general ideas of science not the ideas that people try to come up with trying to be scientific that matter as far as teaching science. Unless you are deciding to add specific theories as part of the lesson to show examples. At which point they need to be objective and let them be theories. If you restric yourself and say you must follow evolution it is not very scientific. From the perspective of science. What if evolution is wrong. That's more objectionable science. And if it is to complicated to be able to be able to prove or disprove as part of a science high school class just do like htey used to and just present it as it's intended points are and show that it is not the only veiw from a true scientific perspective and how it can really be invalid. That would be a true scientific lesson. A very good one since that to most people is the major theory.

And part of my point is it wasn't taught this way that long ago anyway. It was taught more objectivly anyway. Or it was understood how to. Atleast for some period of time.

And my point is if you can't come up with more theories to show the different things involved in science then you shouldn't teach it. And that involves more than just the big ones. You should be able to throw in more modern examples that show both sides that are good and thought out. That doesn't mean they are ones violently paced against each other but htat have some show of merrit that make different parts of each other not possible to show some aspects of thinking scientifically in a calm objective way without trying to prove one thing or another. Because evolution is a bit of a big idea or a much smaller one to include so much in is as to not be able to have different feilds of science taught or even studied without it in mind. So if science is still healthy there ought to be good theories out there still. There were when I was a younger so there should still be now. That would be alot better.

And 1+1 will not eqaul 6 because math is like language. It is given definition. We don't look for it. theoretical science is throwing ideas and possibly numbers at things to try to find answers(If i'm not mistaken). That is different from hard science also. Which is a vey important fact in talks about evolution. And there are more sides to it than Creation and evolution(to bring up another broader point.). I don't even know how people define creationism. It was never more than peoples personal veiws or ideas to see if things worked out personally from a scientific objective. Which people do anyway with theories. so Creationism isn't from it's true standpoint anything to do with evolution with is a specific theory from over 100+ years ago. Which always got to me because how can you scientificlly have a grudge between "ideas" and say you are objective? One not being an idea to boot.(I mean grudge from the standpoint of what a grudge is because it is not what happens in science when ideas or the research behind ideas starts to naturally go against each other. Or seem to.)

On top of it, evolution is a specific theory. Creationism is not. There is no reason for them to have ever been in the same argument. It's just stupid for arguments and like that to, in people minds, validly exist. It just shows the lv of understanding of people out there who are having the arguments and supposadly holding them up. I sure hope it's not the scientist actually discusing those sorts of things. Goes back to alot of argument about having scientfic debate in the open public and its danger.

[Rbstr]

math IS a science. Most of it is based upon things that mathematicians call theorems: theories. They are supported by large bodies of evidence, and so we teach them.

Evolution is not a specific theory, it is a large set of theories all of which are both falsifiable and are supported by a body of evidence.

It is proper science, and just like the audbau principle in chemistry and general relativity in physics it should be taught, because as far as we can tell scientifically it holds true.

[Lartnev]

Originally Posted by Ait'al

Which always got to me because how can you scientificlly have a grudge between "ideas" and say you are objective?

Because scientists like to think they're right and that makes everyone else wrong and inferior by process of elimination. Just look at the whole mess between String theorists and Supergravity theorists!

[Infernus]

Originally Posted by Ait'al

Phythagorean theorem isn't science. It is mathematics. And the basis of science is, In an immensly oversimplified veiw. a general logic to figure things out and a way of thinking(AKA how to properly look for answers about something withough letting your own stupidity get in the way. And what it takes to not let it get in the way.). Not threories.

You've never taken an actual science course then...

Lets say, for sake of argument the classical sciences are broken up into 3 rough categories.

1- Chemistry
2- Mechanics
3- Electricity and Magnetism

From these other sciences are derived (example: Chemistry -> Biochemistry -> Biology. Mechanics -> Motion -> Gravitation. E and M -> Nuclear Physics, etc.)

But in all cases those sciences are based on mathmatical theory in one respect or another. Chemistry deals a lot in the hand of logarithms, Mechanics a lot in differential calculus and trigonometry, and E and M a lot in integral calculus.

Now, lets look at the pythagorian theroem (which you so astutely declared was math, not science).

Pythagorias said that in the case of a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the two perpendicular sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.

A^2+B^2=C^2

This general basis led to what would eventually become the Laws of Sines and Cosines, but that is besides the point, the pythagorian theorem is still a critical part of mechanics.

The most basic example:

A force of 25N is applied to a mass M in the positive x direction. A wind with a force of 5N blows constantly in the positive Y direction. Find the resultant force. Assume the surface is frictionless.

25^2+5^2=C^2

C=resultant force.

CASE IN POINT: SCIENCE IS APPLIED MATH!

Every problem in physics I is math, the physics is simply the arrangement of the objects, to actually solve the problem is all calculus.

Any math is theory and representation.

In every case so far 1+1 has equaled 2 and apples+oranges has equaled bananas. But what happens when apples+oranges=grapefruit. Which, in theory, is very possible. To set a strict bound of "right" and "wrong" or "true" and "false" to anything in the world of mathematics would be the single worst thing for the math world.

Take for example a case in ohio in either the 80s or 90s. A lawmaker wanted to limit Pi to the value of 3.14, because the concept of Pi was "too hard for the children to understand". But Pi is not 3.14, it is commonly rounded off as such. Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter in euclidian geometry. To limit Pi at 3.14 means that a shitload of measurments will be just rough guestimates, and thats all they'll ever be. And as Pi is defined as larger and larger, that guestimate gets rougher and rougher.


Basically what I'm trying to say, is that we have to teach certain theories as law, and they have to be known to be built upon. And what effectively your logic is saying is that no theory should be taught because it is a theory. Try to explain math as defined? MATH IS DEFINED AS HUMAN TESTING HAS PROVEN. Math can change, math will change, what it represents might not necessarily change, but if what we see as 1 is added to itself and equals what we see as 6, then 1+1 sure as hell in that case will equal 6 and the mathematical determination of what we see as 2 will have to change.

[Ait'al]

I just always thought of math as more of a definition. You have something and call it one for the sake of simplicity or just ability to use it for anything ike counting. All math afterwords is still that same thing as defining something as a number. Like words are set to ideas or concepts math is set to other things. Therefore not a science. It is a simple notational system. Literally. And it can never find out anything because it can never be put to something that isn't already there. It can be used to check things like in anything else like accounting but I have never veiwed it as a science. You can use it to help figure things out by mathematically checking things if it is capable of helping you figure something out. But that is not really the science behind what you doing. Even if in the science you are doing you, atleast in, I'm guessing, someones mind, are doing nothing but math to figure it out. It is really just the tool you are using in the science. You are just using it mentally. You still have to apply it and use it in every way or it means nothing. So it really isn't science. Or atleast that is more how I veiw it, I think.

Like you said with physics. It is alot of math. But the math is ajust a counting of stuff. A number system. You are still using your mind to understand the physical object and what it is doing. Studying it as it is in real life. (Or that is the hope.) AKA Science. The math is just being used to count things. It is a system. Physics is the study of protons and neutrons or other things depending on what you are looking at. YOu are simply counting them in the process. The study of them is actaully more complicated. That counting is math. The study and trying to understand is the science. You just chose to use math in the process. You can study any science without math. Physics or otherwise.

[Rbstr]

But the "system" of math, to use your words, is mostly not known for certain.

We don't know that the Pythagorean theorem will work in every single possible case. We assume it does because of the body of evidence. In that respect science is Identical to math.

Even words and language, as you tried to show as evidence, are not 100***37; defined. Someone with a dictionary specific understanding of english is going to have a hard time understanding alot of conversations.