Texas "fact-optional" science education bill

[rushmc 18]

I was there....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Got any extra? I wanna try some of that smoke you bin smokin

Thou shall not smoke! Otherwise Holy Mighty Lord Jesus Christ will put your soul in Hell for Eternal Torments. Aren't you scared of Blazing Inferno? Repent!

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[lawrocket 3]

Climate change is a proven fact. Just last night I was watching a program on the History Channel that showed how a few thousand years ago, New York City was under 4k feet of glacier. Due to global warming, this ice melted, eventually leaving a couple hundred feet of boulders until a glacier lake burst and blew it away.

Right up the road from me is Yosemite, where glaciers created spectacular rock formations that people like to jump off of.

George is correct. We don't know the exact mechanism of heating that created such devastation of pristine glacial ecosystems. But we know that it happened, and if we want to stop it from continuing, we must take all steps to prevent such further glacial melting from occurring.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Climate change is a proven fact. Just last night I was watching a program on the History Channel that showed how a few thousand years ago, New York City was under 4k feet of glacier. Due to global warming, this ice melted, eventually leaving a couple hundred feet of boulders until a glacier lake burst and blew it away.

Right up the road from me is Yosemite, where glaciers created spectacular rock formations that people like to jump off of.

George is correct. We don't know the exact mechanism of heating that created such devastation of pristine glacial ecosystems. But we know that it happened, and if we want to stop it from continuing, we must take all steps to prevent such further glacial melting from occurring.

Yes, climate change is a proven fact. The climate does change. The yet to be determined part is if and can man make any significant impact on WORLD climate. That is and has been my point all along.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Yes, climate change is a proven fact. The climate does change. The yet to be determined part is if and can man make any significant impact on WORLD climate.

I'll let myself quote my own post you reacted in such a strange way:

Quote

The climate change itself is a proven fact. The fact that human activity could lead to climate change is also a proven fact. The thing the scientist do not agree on is whether human activity is influential enough to cause this climate change, or it's the natural cause with little impact from human activity.

What exactly you meant by saying you wanted to smoke the same stuff?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Religion being taught? There is a fine line. I would have a problem withy Creationism being taught as fact. I do not have a problem with Creationism being cited as a competing idea/theory etc.

Because creationism is not a competing theory in science. Claiming otherwise only demonstrates that, not only does the person making the claim not understand science, but is also ignorant of the definition of theory on the context of science.

Quote

How is explaining Creationism equate to religious training?

Creationism does not exist outside of religion. Ignoring that fact won't make it go away.

Quote

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. Education does not deliberately obfuscate or ignore ideas.

Yet, you are advocating ignoring facts in favor of touchy touchy feel good measures that restrict teachers' ability to critique students' understanding of facts when those facts might conflict with superstitions held by those students.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

And this is where I disagree.

Quote

Creationism does not exist outside of religion.

From our present knowledge - yes. The only evidence of a grand Creator is post-hoc theorization to explain events. Creationism is based wholly upon hypothetical.

Now we have science, which provides a theory that is testable (like Einstein's relativity - testable by a precise prediction of the apparent movement of stars by the sun's gravitational field). If the apparent shift did not match, the theory was invalidated.

Here's what we learn.
The theory that the universe is static was blown out of the water by evidence of an expanding universe. Fact. So there's the Big Bang to explain that the universe was a singularity that blew up and is expanding. Fact, right?

But then it was discovered that the expansion is accellerating. Did this eliminate the Big Bang theory, which did not predict it? No. It turns out that a whole lotta weird stuff is going on that is not explained by the theories. Theories invalidated, right?

Wrong. The theory was tweaked by suggesting the presence of dark energy -energy that we cannot detect. And dark matter - which we also cannot detect. We can merely infer that it is there through the effects we observe on galaxies, etc. We put forth hypothetical forces to make our theories work. We don't say, "Dang. Prediction was way off. We need a new theory." Instead, we theorize somethng new to maintain our beloved theory.

The Big Bang theory (and other theories of astrophysics) is pretty much accepted as Big Bang fact. Predictions didn't fit obervations, so dark matter and dark energy were hypothecated. It's not that the Big Bang theory makes incorrect predictions. These observational variances can easily be explained by shit we cannot detect, but we know must be there because our theories cannot be wrong.

The universe just doesn't make sense under the theory/fact of the Big Bang unless we admit that only 4% of the universe is detectable - under our established models, all of our detection amounts to only 4% of the proof. The rest of it (22%) is dark matter and 74% of it is dark energy.

So to make the physics work, we must hypothesize 96% of the universe which we cannot detect but is the only explanation that fits our dogma.

96% of the universe has not been detected.

96% of the main theory that competes with "creationism" is based upon conjecture. (For the record, the Big Bang's 4% exceeds Creationism's, in my book. In other words, I find Big Bang more believable. Then again, I'm atheist.)

If I was to bring this up in class discussion, I would likely face some degree of backlash. If I were to question why the hell we focus on a theory for which 96% of the proof is hypothetical, obviously plenty of people would find that to blasphemy. Heresy.

The Big Bang is proven by 4% evidence. Dark Matter and Dark Energy do not exist outside of science. There is, indeed, no proof in fact of these things that occupy 96% of our universe.

Quote

you are advocating ignoring facts

Ignoring facts? Hardly. Fact - to make the Big Bang theory work, you've got to reason that 96% of the universe is undetectable. We can infer it's presence because it is the only explanation for why something doesn't fit our prediction. It's not that our prediction is wrong.

Maybe Newtonian physics don't apply on a galactic level.
Maybe Einstein wasn't entirely right.
Maybe Keplerian dynamics are not applicable in all circumstances.
Maybe we need new theories.

I predicted rain in Fresno today. We got some clouds, but no rain. Even accounting for temperature and humidity, it is simply unfathomable that my prediction wasn't right. There must be some "anti-water" force at work. By my calculation, this force must consist of 346 billion tons of "anti-water" in the local atmosphere. Since the barometric pressure did not change accordingly, it can only be explained that anti-water is balanced by some "light force" that counters its weight precisely.

It couldn't be that my theory was wrong. My theory is a good one. There is something else out there we don't know about. No, I haven't found anti-water or its "light force" corrollary, but these are the simplest explanations for the observation. I have seen the effects: it was supposed to rain but it didn't. These are the simplest exlanations.

Now - I must go find these strange forces. I'll be a Nobel Prize winner, fer shure...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Wrong. The theory was tweaked by suggesting the presence of dark energy -energy that we cannot detect. And dark matter - which we also cannot detect.

That is incorrect. Ignoring that fact in order to make an incorrect argument more convenient won't make the assumptions upon which you base your argument correct.

You are kidding yourself if you think that our difficulty of observing credible evidence of dark energy and dark matter is of the same order of magnitude as our difficulty of observing credible evidence of a supernatural creator.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Kidding myself? You failed to read my post where I explicitly stated I buy the big bang more than Creationism.

But now I get an F. I ask questions. Recall that the movement of the planets was predicted and explained while maintaining the earth at the center of the universe. The pattern of movement was goofy, but the observations matched.

Then Copernicus came and said, "here is something simple and proveable."

So, tell me, it it possible that our modern understanding of physics is but the next step? I mean, could something besides undetectable shit that is 96% of the universe be possible?

I myself note that my wife is pissed off tonight. I can fill in the blanks by stating that it's the wrong time of the month. It certainly explains her actions to my satisfaction. Maybe tomorrow I will find out that my not getting home until 7:30 is the real explanation.

You may think, "lawrocket is ignorant." A simple explanation that can fit with a theory that those who question whether the speed of light in a vacuum really is constant just don't know what they are talking about, and lots of inferential evidence to prove it.

On the other hand, I've got more substantial proof that I'm a cynical asshole. The theories would be alternative explanations for the same thing.

I'm so arrogant that I am unmoving in my belief that we humans don't understand the universe. There is stuff about which we have no idea.

So go on with your belief that your theory is correct. There is absolutely no room for another explanation. And no roomfor the suggestion that we are clueless with regard to plenty of shit.

You are right. 96% of the Big Bang science is based on stuff we just can't detect. Either you are right and the theory is correct. Or I am right and there is another explanation.

In dealing with the quantum possibilities of the universe, I prefer to allow for the possibilities of alternatives. Including the possibility that another explanation besides, "we cannot detect 96% of our universe, but the other 4% of the universe can.

Maybe illness is caused by germs - despite the thousands of years of believing something else.

Maybe despite what my eyes tell me, the world is round.

Maybe we are but a planet going around the sun, despite what everyone thinks.

Man, have we got a history of being wrong, or what????

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Coreece 190]

How dare you!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 2,426]

> I mean, could something besides undetectable shit that is 96%
>of the universe be possible?

Yes, it could.

Now, let's say that you really believe in the "you should teach all alternatives" thing, since nothing is for sure, and you want kids to have a wide exposure to the options. Would you be OK with the following curriculum for science education for your kids:

Week 1. The universe behaves according to natural laws. Covers gravitation, chemistry, electricity, planetary science.

Week 2. The universe is governed by the stars. Covers astrology, determining your sign, and creating horoscopes.

Week 3. The universe was created by God 6000 years ago. Covers the Seven Days, the trials of Adam and Eve, and the order in which animals were created after man.

Week 4. The universe was created by Allah. Covers Mohammed's role in creation.

Week 5. The theory of blood and human sacrifice. Covers the Aztec theories requiring regular human sacrifice to run the universe through Tonacayotl.

Week 6. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism week. Covers the various theories concerning the FSM and how it alters scientific results via his noodly appendage to

Week 7. Egyptian creationism. World from water.

Week 8. Hindu creationism. The blinding chaotic light that created the first Yin and Yang from the formless void.

Weeks 9-20. Creation theories of each of the Indian tribes in the US, including the Sioux, Cherokee, Tehatchapi, and Washoe theories.

Week 21. Flat-earth week. Covers the issues concerning the flat earth theory of planetary science, and how that correlates to the various creation theories.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I mean, could something besides undetectable shit that is 96% of the universe be possible?

Yes. Had you followed the links I provided, you would know that instead of "undetectable shit", scientists have instead relied on things that are detectable, such as dark matter and dark energy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Thank you Bill.

We teach the Big Bang because its the best scientific explanation for our universe.

But when a cynical guy like me asks, "what? 96% of our universe is undetectable?" the skeptical denier won't be penalized for using his brain.

We do not teach that we are infected with body thetans. But we don't penalize the kid for bringing it up in discussion.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,426]

>But when a cynical guy like me asks, "what? 96% of our universe is
>undetectable?" the skeptical denier won't be penalized for using his brain.

He never was. If, in an appropriate venue (i.e. not screaming it in the middle of class) he asks a teacher about that, AND he does well on the tests and assignments, then he gets an answer and he gets a good grade.

If that's not true in Texas, they have much bigger problems than creationism.

[philh 0]

"So to make the physics work, we must hypothesize 96% of the universe which we cannot detect but is the only explanation that fits our dogma.
"
I don't understand how you can use the phrase Big Bang and dogma in the same sentence. The big bang is accepted for the overwhelming evidence in favour of it . It makes testabel predicitons which have been verfified by subsequent data.
The fact that we can't comprehend what the matter in the Universe is made of does not invalidate the big bang.
Creationsism does not make simialr testab/falsifiable predicitons.
Moreover scientists are ready to abandon any well cherished theories if they fit the data better. There are many propsed modifcaiton of our understanding of gravity including :
Scala tensor Vector gravity ad Modified Newtonian dynamcis. If the evidence becomes compelling for anyone of these then text books will be rewritten, but not before. That's good science , not dogma.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

96% of the universe has not been detected.

96% of the main theory that competes with "creationism" is based upon conjecture.

That's a horrific and stupid misapplication of statistics.

Quote

Ignoring facts? Hardly. Fact - to make the Big Bang theory work, you've got to reason that 96% of the universe is undetectable.

No you don't.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

You are right. 96% of the Big Bang science is based on stuff we just can't detect.

No, it's really not.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steve1 5]

Quote

Quote

96% of the universe has not been detected.

96% of the main theory that competes with "creationism" is based upon conjecture.

That's a horrific and stupid misapplication of statistics.

...........................................................................


I agree.

Theories that are testable are worth studying.

Creationism should be kept out of the schools in my opinion. It's like saying magic is a possibility.

Kazam!....and the heavens and earth were created. How can anyone who thinks rationally swallow that?

As long as I'm gettting up on my soap box I thought I might add a little more. Are politicians really the right people to decide on what is taught in our schools? Sometimes I think they play too big of a role in this.

The "No Child Left Behind Act" is an example of what can happen when too many idiots get together. A group of politicians, with nothing better to do, drafted that. Any educator could see from the start that it was ridiculous to set standards that were unreachable, and then say, "If you don't reach those goals your ass is grass."

Maybe here too magical, emotional, thinking was involved, just like religion. All we need is more politicians deciding on things of this nature......

"If we just set the bar high enough, if we just punish enough teachers and principals, if everyone just tries hard enough, we can achieve the inmpossible!"......

"After all things like that happen on TV and the movies......Maybe we should just ignore what all the trained professionals have to say. After all politicians are smarter than underpaid educators. Maybe we should just draft something into law and the problem will be taken care of. Then we can sit back and feel good about ourselves"......

This seems to be the only in depth thinking that was behind this "The No Child Left Behind Act". It has proven to be a huge waste of tax payer dollars.....

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Theories that are testable are worth studying.

Exactly. I personally believe that the Big Bang theory is pretty simple to prove and the evidence is pretty overwhelming. The science is there to show that objects being detected have doppler shifted light towards the red part of the spectrum, indicating a lengthening wavelength and ergo expanding away.

Creationism cannot be proven through observation and testing, and thus I consider it invalid. Observational data simply does not exist.

The Ptolomy was able to fairly accurately predict the positions of the planets. But his predictions didn't always fit the size of the loops of individual planets. Thus, Ptolemy envisioned an equant to account for the motions of the planets that were not predicted. Via equant, his theory could thus be proven.

Ptolemy had, in his mind, proof of hsi equant, for it explained how the observations were skewed at times. And the equant was the undeniable evidence that his theory was correct. Notably - this was the system that Copernicus challenged - around 1400 years later.

The equant proved his theory! It did. It explained why his predictions weren't valid. Just because his theory of geocentrism didn't accurately predict the motion of the planets did not mean that his theory was false. He just needed to amend it with equant, which supplied the necessary proof. He couldn't see equant, he couldn't detect it. Technology wasn't available to prove its existence. But Ptolemy's theory worked pretty well.

Only when observations had more technology did the theory get destroyed.

I like history. Observations don't match predictions? Well, our theory would work if 96% of the universe was undetectable matter and energy.

I cannot help but question whether "dark energy" is but a modern variant of "equant." To question this is valid. Unfortunately, this question cannot be resolved because dark energy and dark matter haven't been detected. All we see are what we attribute to be their effects.

We cannot test it. We cannot say, "Let us examine the effect without dark matter or dark energy to see whether it matches our predictions."

My suggestion? Let us not presume that our understanding of the fundamentals is complete. Maybe there is no dark matter or dark energy. Perhaps it is merely our theories that are incorrect.

I hope not. But I'm not gonna stop inquiring.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Wrong. The theory was tweaked by suggesting the presence of dark energy -energy that we cannot detect. And dark matter - which we also cannot detect.

That is incorrect. Ignoring that fact in order to make an incorrect argument more convenient won't make the assumptions upon which you base your argument correct.

You are kidding yourself if you think that our difficulty of observing credible evidence of dark energy and dark matter is of the same order of magnitude as our difficulty of observing credible evidence of a supernatural creator.

This is interesting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

The equant proved his theory! It did. It explained why his predictions weren't valid. Just because his theory of geocentrism didn't accurately predict the motion of the planets did not mean that his theory was false. He just needed to amend it with equant, which supplied the necessary proof.

I cannot help but question whether "dark energy" is but a modern variant of "equant."

No. No one says that dark matter or energy "proves" big bang theory. That's nonsense.

Quote

My suggestion? Let us not presume that our understanding of the fundamentals is complete.

Who does?

Quote

Maybe there is no dark matter or dark energy. Perhaps it is merely our theories that are incorrect.

Perhaps. And there's an enormous amount of time, money and brainpower dedicated to finding this stuff out. The world of physics hasn't simply decided that dark matter must be responsible and then moved on to something else.

Quote

I hope not. But I'm not gonna stop inquiring.

How many physics experiments have you been involved in over the last decade?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

I've been involved in a few experiments. Apparently they just can't figure out what the hell I am.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I cannot help but question whether "dark energy" is but a modern variant of "equant." To question this is valid.

Agreed. Ignoring the valid answer and continuing to claim that dark matter and dark energy are not detectable, however, is intellectually dishonest.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JackC 0]

Quote

The equant proved his theory! It did.

For a lawyer, your understanding of the word proof is rather worrying.

[lawrocket 3]

I appreciate your substantive stance.

My wife is hotter than your wife.