What is "anti-science"?

[Joel]

Spreading the lie there is a scientific controversy where none exists just to push your political agenda is both anti-science and anti-honesty.

It is if there really isn't any actual controversy.

I'm not saying to lie about how-widely different ideas are accepted. The point is not to say that it is currently controversial. The point is to exercise one's reason by examining a proposition to try to figure out how to tell whether it is true or false. Even if everyone in the world is already agreed on the matter. Even if you think you already know the truth. As I quoted Mill earlier, "So essential is this discipline to a real understanding...that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up."

Debate, for example, is beneficial even among people who are agreed on the topic. As an exercise, debating on a side you disagree with (as a "devil's advocate") can be beneficial. In such cases the controversy is fictional and the participants know that it is a fiction. Thus I'd say that grappling with even a fictional controversy (while, of course being honest about its being fiction) can be a beneficial way to deepen one's understanding, to become more confident in the truth, and even to discover where you happen to be mistaken. It is not anti-science.

[Joel]

The flat earther here didn't - he simply announced that the evidence was faked.

I do not mean to imply that all flat earthers are like the flat earthers I described. It could perhaps be that many or most flat earthers are anti-science. My point is rather that there exist flat earthers who embrace scientific method, and do not reject it--who do not have antipathy toward science. Thus that alone doesn't imply that someone is anti-science.

[TheLurch]

I do not mean to imply that all flat earthers are like the flat earthers I described. It could perhaps be that many or most flat earthers are anti-science. My point is rather that there exist flat earthers who embrace scientific method, and do not reject it--who do not have antipathy toward science. Thus that alone doesn't imply that someone is anti-science.

Once again, the scientific method involves accepting well supported evidence produced by others.

You can repeat that they're scientific all you want. It doesn't make it true.

[TheLurch]

I see I may have misunderstood what you said before. I assumed you meant that there has been research on students grappling with a controversy and that that has been found wanting as a method of learning and developing understanding. And I was asking for more information about that. But I reread and see that you only said it "isn't on the recommended list for bettering student understanding". Which could be just because it hasn't really been studied or considered.

One, you've presented no evidence that "teach the controversy" is good pedagogy other than "i like it."
Two, there's lots of information in that book about what IS good pedagogy, and it doesn't recommend "teach the controversy" in a science classroom setting.

[rogue06]

I'm not saying to lie about how-widely different ideas are accepted. The point is not to say that it is currently controversial. The point is to exercise one's reason by examining a proposition to try to figure out how to tell whether it is true or false. Even if everyone in the world is already agreed on the matter. Even if you think you already know the truth. As I quoted Mill earlier, "So essential is this discipline to a real understanding...that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up."

That's not teaching the controversy as it is popularly called but rather examining the evidence. If there is no controversy about something in the scientific community then there is no controversy to teach.

[TheLurch]

That's not teaching the controversy as it is popularly called but rather examining the evidence. If there is no controversy about something in the scientific community then there is no controversy to teach.

I find it fundamentally misleading. "OK, kids, we're going to pretend this topic is uncertain so that you can take a look at all the evidence that shows us it's not."

[Joel]

Once again, the scientific method involves accepting well supported evidence produced by others.

I don't recall seeing acceptance of the testimony of others included in any description of the scientific method. I think including that would be nonstandard. Rather acceptance/rejection of something is based on testing by experiment/observation.

[Joel]

I find it fundamentally misleading. "OK, kids, we're going to pretend this topic is uncertain so that you can take a look at all the evidence that shows us it's not."

I said already that nobody teaching or presenting need pretend to be neutral or uncertain.
And/or are you proposing not looking at all the evidence? Why/why not?

[HMS_Beagle]

I said already that nobody teaching or presenting need pretend to be neutral or uncertain.
And/or are you proposing not looking at all the evidence? Why/why not?

Science has looked at all the positive evidence for evolution and the falsifying evidence against Young Earth Creationism for over 150 years. There's no need to waste any valuable class time going over Creationist garbage again.

[Roy]

Spot the difference:

Once again, the scientific method involves accepting well supported evidence produced by others.

I don't recall seeing acceptance of the testimony of others included in any description of the scientific method.

The descriptions of techniques, methods and results found in scientific writing is not mere testimony. It usually includes sufficient information to allow the reader to reproduce the results if they desire.

The alternative requires every scientist to duplicate every single experiment ever done, which is absurdly impractical.

Rather acceptance/rejection of something is based on testing by experiment/observation.

Good luck building your own supercollider.

[TheLurch]

I said already that nobody teaching or presenting need pretend to be neutral or uncertain.
And/or are you proposing not looking at all the evidence? Why/why not?

Please don't put words in my mouth. You can look at all the evidence relevant to a topic without taking a "teach the controversy" approach that involves examining ideas that are blatantly, laughably wrong.

[TheLurch]

I don't recall seeing acceptance of the testimony of others included in any description of the scientific method. I think including that would be nonstandard. Rather acceptance/rejection of something is based on testing by experiment/observation.

Publishing results of experiments, and building on the works of others, has been part of the scientific process since Galileo and Newton - before science existed as a discipline as such. It's now formalized through the peer reviewed publication process, but it's been there from the start, whether or not you've personally seen it described as part of science.

And again, you're dodging the larger issue: the alternative is to redo science that's been verified countless times. To paraphrase a recent court decision on a scientific evaluation: you don't have to rederive a proof of the existence of the electron every time you want to talk about chemistry. Accepting well-evidenced findings is the only way for science to progress. If science had fallen prey to your sort of thinking, i'd have spent my years in graduate school trying to confirm that phlogiston doesn't exist.

[Sparko]

Publishing results of experiments, and building on the works of others, has been part of the scientific process since Galileo and Newton - before science existed as a discipline as such. It's now formalized through the peer reviewed publication process, but it's been there from the start, whether or not you've personally seen it described as part of science.

And again, you're dodging the larger issue: the alternative is to redo science that's been verified countless times. To paraphrase a recent court decision on a scientific evaluation: you don't have to rederive a proof of the existence of the electron every time you want to talk about chemistry. Accepting well-evidenced findings is the only way for science to progress. If science had fallen prey to your sort of thinking, i'd have spent my years in graduate school trying to confirm that phlogiston doesn't exist.

so in other words, "you just gotta have faith" in science.

[Sea of red]

so in other words, "you just gotta have faith" in science.

Faith and reliability are two different things.

[Sparko]

Faith and reliability are two different things.

Not really. They both come down to "trust" - you have to trust that what you believe is true, especially if you don't want to go around verifying every experiment and result for yourself.

Faith is trust. That is what we Christians have been telling you guys forever. Atheists love to mock faith but when it comes down to it, everyone has to have faith no matter what their world view. Faith isn't believing without evidence, it is trusting the evidence.