Dawkins celebrates

[cablescavenger]

A nice little link here. I wonder if America will go the same way?

Free schools that teach ID as science in the UK will lose funding.

Your thoughts?

 

[Storm]

Hope so.

 

[9Westy9]

These public or private schools?

 

[rusra02]

A nice little link here. I wonder if America will go the same way?

Free schools that teach ID as science in the UK will lose funding.

Your thoughts?

"Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations"."

Sounds like mind-control. We wouldn't want these poor kids exposed to anything that might keep them from drinking the ToE Kool-aid, or the "scientific" orthodox propaganda.

 

[9Westy9]

"Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations"."

Sounds like mind-control. We wouldn't want these poor kids exposed to anything that might keep them from drinking the ToE Kool-aid, or the "scientific" orthodox propaganda.

There's always this side to it. Of course until the ID campaign come up with something more scientific they should stick to the RE class

 

[Bob Dixon]

I'm all for it. A science class is a science class. Children should be learning science there.
What's the problem?

 

[cablescavenger]

These public or private schools?

Public Schools.

Private schools are privately funded, so the government cannot withdraw those funds.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm not sure.
What about innovative science - for example the view that consciousness has something to do with quantum mechanics - that runs contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations? can that cause funding to be blocked?
When does new science that challenges the status quo become 'established'?
When would it have been ok to stop teaching Newton and start teaching Einstein?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure.
What about innovative science - for example the view that consciousness has something to do with quantum mechanics - that runs contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations? can that cause funding to be blocked?
When does new science that challenges the status quo become 'established'?
When would it have been ok to stop teaching Newton and start teaching Einstein?

A line must be drawn somewhere, lest schools teach sorcery, astrology, numerology & speaking in tongues as science.
But fortunately, only a single simple criterion is needed, ie, it must fit the definition of "science".
(It's easy to look up.) The fatal flaw with ID is that this 'theory' is neither testable nor falsifiable.
Thus, it fails to be science.

Now that this is settled, I'll next cure cancer & fix the economy.

 

[sandandfoam]

But fortunately, only a single simple criterion is needed, ie, it must fit the definition of "science".

That's not what's reported here.
"Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations"."

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not what's reported here.
"Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations"."

The unfortunate language does suggest unbending thought, but I detect
the real purpose to be only to fund teaching actual science as "science".

 

[sandandfoam]

The unfortunate language does suggest unbending thought, but I detect
the real purpose to be only to fund teaching actual science as "science".

I have no problem a proposal which advances the purpose you state.
This doesn't seem to be such a proposal. If that's what they mean then that is what they should say. Dawkins can express himself beautifully. Maybe they should have asked him to write it.

 

[Alex_G]

A nice little link here. I wonder if America will go the same way?

Free schools that teach ID as science in the UK will lose funding.

Your thoughts?

The Government should be doing what is best and in keeping with the views of the people of that country, and so may be, not least for any other reason, democratically defendable in taking such action in the UK.

Additionally, and i think more importantly, good education is a real virtue, and to promote and empower it is to try and create a means by which wiser and deeper people can emerge.

Education can be objectively good or bad, and its important to be able to see what makes certain things inappropriate especially when we are talking about children who are highly impressionable. Thats a responsibility.

It is one thing to teach a person 'about things', such that its a fact that there are x number of Christians on the Earth, and that their world view consists of xyz. But its entirely different to teach that their worldview be correct in a scientific sense. To hijack the term science and pose unfounded information as true, in the same fashion as established scientific truths isnt right at all and can hardly be considered good education. I for one am glad that such a thing is now even less likely to occur.

 

[cablescavenger]

"Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations"."

Sounds like mind-control. We wouldn't want these poor kids exposed to anything that might keep them from drinking the ToE Kool-aid, or the "scientific" orthodox propaganda.

Is evidence based schooling aproblem for you then Rusra?

 

[Alex_G]

That's not what's reported here.
"Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations"."

I think that when something runs contrary to established science, it doesnt just mean different on the surface, but fundamentally different. Not so much different in content, but rather in how it was arrived at.
Such that the definition of science includes a framework that allows for new and better ideas to emerge and replace old ideas on grounds of merit, such as more accuracy, elegance, evidence, ability to make predictions and so on.
It is that respect for the ethos and method of science that makes the subject what it is, and thus no place for content that doesnt hold that respect.

If a physics teacher turned out to be the Einstein in a Newtonian Paradigm, i would think he could still tell students sincerely about his interpretation and still call it science as it was arrived at by scientific means. But in all honestly he might be better to publish that first and put it out there to challenge the status quo. He still has a duty to teach Newtonian science as the mainstream foundation untill his work meets the global peer review and testing, which is an important part of the scientific method.

Thats different to someone advocating the truth of claims that have nothing scientific about its claims, and to insert it into scientific curriculum posing as on a par with chemistry, biology and physics. This is what i would understand as 'contrary to established science'.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Is evidence based schooling aproblem for you then Rusra?

The massive conspiracy against the Gracious Leader is the main reason...

 

[sandandfoam]

I think that when something runs contrary to established science, it doesnt just mean different on the surface, but fundamentally different. Not so much different in content, but rather in how it was arrived at.
Such that the definition of science includes a framework that allows for new and better ideas to emerge and replace old ideas on grounds of merit, such as more accuracy, elegance, evidence, ability to make predictions and so on.
It is that respect for the ethos and method of science that makes the subject what it is, and thus no place for content that doesnt hold that respect.

If a physics teacher turned out to be the Einstein in a Newtonian Paradigm, i would think he could still tell students sincerely about his interpretation and still call it science as it was arrived at by scientific means. But in all honestly he might be better to publish that first and put it out there to challenge the status quo. He still has a duty to teach Newtonian science as the mainstream foundation untill his work meets the global peer review and testing, which is an important part of the scientific method.

Thats different to someone advocating the truth of claims that have nothing scientific about its claims, and to insert it into scientific curriculum posing as on a par with chemistry, biology and physics. This is what i would understand as 'contrary to established science'.

By that measure wouldn't it follow that any school teaching critical social psychology would fall outside what is allowed?

 

[sandandfoam]

Also - why shouldn't science be challenged?
I think it should. At every turn. Science is the better for challenge imo

 

[Revoltingest]

Also - why shouldn't science be challenged?
I think it should. At every turn. Science is the better for challenge imo

Challenge away if you wish.
But science is a method which works well & is evidence based.
Alternatives such as ID have presented no testable theories.
Faith based beliefs are simply not science, & I'd rather not see
tax money spent on teaching myths as though they're factual.
Btw, accepted science is regularly challenged by novel theories.

 

[Alex_G]

By that measure wouldn't it follow that any school teaching critical social psychology would fall outside what is allowed?

Also - why shouldn't science be challenged?
I think it should. At every turn. Science is the better for challenge imo

I agree that science should be challenged, thats what makes it such a successful model. Validly challenging current theories is what science is all about, and should be encouraged. Teaching kids to think about new ideas, experiments and ways of testing hypotheses is important. Its however very different to teaching impressionable children that something is scientifically true when it isnt. Thats the sort of intellectual dishonestly i associate with whats not allowed.

I dont see how critical psychology is outside the realm of science from what i said as it will still have an appreciation for a scientific methodology and rational investigation and experimentation, even though its a challenge to what is mainstream. It would be fine to teach so long as its not being taught in a manner that falsely states its grounding and evidence. (Not to teach something that isnt widely accepted as widely accepted).