davywavy: (Default)
[personal profile] davywavy
There's quite a famous story about Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman. Arriving to lecture one day at Berkeley University, he found the lecture theatre being picketed by students protesting that the teaching of science was sexist because more men than women studied it, and that Feynman himself was a sexist pig.
He agreed to address the protesters to attempt to defuse the situation, and so he invited them into the lecture theatre and began to speak. He agreed with the protestors that women do suffer from discrimination in science and so he'd like to talk to them about something which would be of particular interest to the women present - the internal structure of the proton.
Campus security later said it was the fastest they'd ever seen a student protest break up and leave.

Feynman was a great believer in making the teaching of science open and accessible to all - if you've read any of his books, such as The meaning of it all, or QED: The strange theory of light and matter you'll know that he really wanted to make scientific ideas and reasoning as open and accessible as possible to the layman. I was reminded of this yesterday when [livejournal.com profile] sea_cucumber posted a question asking what was wrong with Intelligent Design as an idea.
Now, as an idea, there's not really anything objectionable with Intelligent Design. It's no more unreasonable than many other philosophical arguments. What is objectionable is that the proponents of Intelligent Design want it taught in science classes as a theory - and ID is not science. Reading between the lines on the website of the leading ID organisation underlines this, for all that they use the word 'science' in their literature the ultimate conclusion is that the development of humans was guided by an intelligent creator and if you look at the evidence then that's what you'll see.
That ain't science. It's Natural Philosophy, and as such has no more place in a science lesson than does Alchemy in Chemistry lessons or Freemasonry in bricklaying classes.

Anyone discussing intelligent design (or considering whether to, as they say, “teach the controversy”) would do well to read Feynman’s 1974 commencement address to Cal-Tech, included in Classic Feynman (from Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!) as the chapter “Cargo Cult Science.” The title comes, as Feynman explains, from primitive people in the South Seas who’d experienced airplanes landing with useful things during World War II and wanted this to happen again.
For years afterward, they would station a man in a wooden hut next to an abandoned runway, with wooden pieces on his ears like headphones and bamboo sticking out like an antenna. But even though he looked just like an air-traffic controller, and fires burned as guide lights just like they did before, still no planes came.
And the one feature Feynman noticed is missing from all cargo-cult science is what he calls “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to...a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it.”
That's the point of science. Any scientific theory must be replicable and disprovable. ID isn't either, and so by definition doesn't belong in science lessons.
In the main, the ID debate has been confined to the US, but as reported yesterday it is starting to make its influence felt over here.

Sadly, the liklihood is that a contributory factor to the rise in creationist/ID propaganda in science is the poor teaching of Philosophy in schools, wherein the questions of 'where'd we come from?' might be properly addressed. Current teaching of philosophy is a box-ticking exercise, where you'll get a pass mark if you can correctly name half a dozen prophets and the holidays of major religions. It doesn't look at, or encourage students to ask, questions about the meaning of life. Nor does it teach students to ask questions or how to pursue debate.
The point that the Creationist/ID campaigners are missing is that Physics is a subset of Metaphysics, not the other way round. This is something which should be covered by philosophical education. What science teaches us is how things work, not whether we're here for a purpose. The discussion of that purpose is Philosophy.
I suppose that this is both the triumph and failure of science. Originally invented by Francis Bacon to better understand the working of Gods mind and creation, the scientific method has proven to be such an efficient tool that many people now ascribe to it miraculous powers ("Science will find a solution for global warming!") without any evidence that such things are even possible. And, as miraculous solutions to big problems prove hard to find with scientific method (what did you expect?), people who have not been educated as to what science really is are increasingly turning back to demagogues who promise them the world.
In reality, there should be no conflict between religion and the scientific method. It's been a basic tenet of liberal Protestantism since the middle of the last century (heavily influenced by the debate around Darwin's discoveries) that the church will not contradict the findings of science. After all, God works in mysterious ways and if you've got an Omnipotent Being in the equation then really all bets are off - in that case, all science is telling us is how Omnipotence acheieves its aims. There's no examination as to why or what for. Unless you're Richard Dawkins, of course, but he's just as blinkered as the Kansas School Board in his own dear, sweet little way.

This brings me to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Originally created as a joke to spoof the Kansas School Board, the FSM was one of those ideas which you see on the internet, chuckle for a moment, and then get on with whatever it was you were doing. Oddly, however, the FSM seems to have caught on in a big way in the online community, and the creator must be laughing all the way tot eh bank as quite a little merchandising industry seems to ahve grown up about it. Personally, I'm not really a fan for reasons summed up in this excellent piece in Scientific American, namely that people with strongly held religious views, when mocked for those views, tend not to guffaw, merrily slap their thighs and exclaim that you're right and how could they have been so foolish. It's a bit like me teasing lefties - they just get all dogmatic and defensive because laughing at the absurd nonsense they adhere isn't fair (stamps foot). Really, the only way to tackle the problem of dogmatism is to give it publicity; free speech and open debate will tend to see daft arguments reduced.
What really needs to be done is to demonstrate to people with religious conviction that Darwin, or any other scientific theory, is no threat to their beliefs. Science is a tool and how that tool is used, and what the results of that use mean, is a matter for Philosophers and debate. There's a classroom where that should be happening. It's got R.E. on the door.

Alternatively, we could just point out that if someone feels their faith and their god to be so weak that they are threatened by the ideas of others, then they should get a better God. An Onmipotent Being isn't threatened by a bunch of losers getting it wrong.

Date: 2006-02-22 11:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] colin-boyle.livejournal.com
I agree with you pretty much completely on the ID isn't science bit. As for "It's a bit like me teasing lefties - they just get all dogmatic and defensive because laughing at the absurd nonsense they adhere isn't fair (stamps foot).", I don't do that, I just laugh at your absurd nonsense then expose your assumptions and disprove your arguments.

Date: 2006-02-22 11:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com
Given that I only put that line in to tease people, I consider my teasing successful :D

Date: 2006-02-22 11:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] colin-boyle.livejournal.com
I was teasing you!

Date: 2006-02-22 11:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] colin-boyle.livejournal.com
Personally, I like Dawkin's refutation of ID in http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

My concern will all religion is that, by definition, it is irrational. Once someone is prepared to be irrational in certain areas (particularly when it is about such big issues as morals, the purpose of life, the relative value of the life of believers vs non-believers etc.) how can you ever be sure they will be rational about anything?

ID is a good example of this. They believe there is a creator and that the earth was created c. 6000 years ago, so want to undermine anything that refutes this belief. They are prepared to be irrational in this sphere of science because it is required to sustain their belief system.

Date: 2006-02-22 12:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com
Dawkins is as dogmatic as those he argues against, just in a different way. His ideas shouldn't be dismissed as wrong because of that, but it really makes me respect him less.
I'm not sure that religion is irrational; unprovable by logic/scientific method don't automatically equate to irrational. If all religious thought is irrational, then any debate of moral relativism is irrational. Without demonstrable absolutes (and I'm pushed to think of any in moral/philosophical debates, which is why we have debates), you can't have anything else. What's more worrying is people who cannot concede that they may be wrong; people who lack the ability to shrug and say "What do I know, let's have a pint", are the most worrying, irrespective of thier religious belief or lack thereof.

ID isn't creationism, or some parts aren't. The smart ones are arguing that the earth is 4bn years old, and changes in the chromosome occured to lead to the rise of humanity. Their argument is that those changes occured with the help/connivance of a designer with an end in mind.
Of course, the bonkers end still have God burying dinosaur bones to confuse us, but they're well out of the loop.

Date: 2006-02-22 03:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] colin-boyle.livejournal.com
How is rigorously applying scientific method dogmatic? All he is doing is taking it to the logical conclusion. To quote specifically from the article linked to earlier:
"If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect."
and
"If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs."

ID doesn't even play the game of science, it just adopts a cloak of quasi-science language.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 03:42 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2006-02-22 11:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com
It's a bit like me teasing lefties - they just get all dogmatic and defensive because laughing at the absurd nonsense they adhere isn't fair (stamps foot). Really, the only way to tackle the problem of dogmatism is to give it publicity; free speech and open debate will tend to see daft arguments reduced.

Or, indeed, me teasing Tories ;)

I think, having had this discussion with actual Americans, is that the problem is that in the US they mostly don't HAVE a classroom with RE on the door. When I did RE A-Level, one of the set texts was "The Blind Watchmaker", along with others from each side of the creationism/atheism spectrum. This enabled me to triangulate between the various arguments and form my own opinion. I also recall the party we had to celebrate having covered all the philosophers in the Drunken Philosophers Song.

As you rightly say, the standard of teaching in RE is perhaps not quite so robust in all schools these days.

The other problem is the confusion over the word "theory". Theory in layman's terms is not the same thing as scientific theory, and most proponents of intelligent design fail to address this, or even exploit it.

Personally, I don't believe in God. However, that doesn't mean I don't have a moral code which I adhere to, and which from some angles could look like a religion, even though I don't worship anyone. I am therefore demonstrably attached to the dictum "Religion is my index finger; science is my thumb. Between them both, I can grasp anything."

Date: 2006-02-22 12:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com
Or, indeed, me teasing Tories ;)


You see what I mean; there you go, getting all dogmatic.

Date: 2006-02-22 12:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com
* points you towards the ";)" which indicates a knowing wink and teasingness *

La, sir, I feel it is YOU who is getting dogmatic! I'm giggling.

Date: 2006-02-22 03:02 pm (UTC)
winterbadger: (rt rev & lrnd father in god wm laud)
From: [personal profile] winterbadger
I think, having had this discussion with actual Americans, is that the problem is that in the US they mostly don't HAVE a classroom with RE on the door.

As a Real American (tm) ;-), I have to agree. When I was reading "...the poor teaching of Philosophy in schools..." in the original post, I was thinking "WHAT teaching of philosophy in schools?" In those parts of the US I'm familiar with, philosophy isn't taught until university. Some social studies classes in secondary school have "comparative religion" segements, but people are very chary about what they say in them because discussing religion in school is so controversial.

Many of those who adhere to a religion become angry if their children are taught about other religions, and many of those who adhere to no religion are upset if their children are taught about *any* religion. The expectation apparently is that teachers cannot teach religion without proselytizing, and what a child learns in school during one semester a few hours a week will somehow overcome a lifetime's worth of whatever values the family has inculcated.

Date: 2006-02-22 03:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com
Many of those who adhere to a religion become angry if their children are taught about other religions, and many of those who adhere to no religion are upset if their children are taught about *any* religion.

Because we must hate and fear those who are different from us! God/Allah/FSM/Reason forbid that we should learn about them and try to understand them! That would remove the reason for fighting them, and think of all the jobs that would be lost in the armaments indusrtry!

* headdesk *

Like davywavy says above, if you're THAT insecure in your religion (or lack thereof) that you think merely KNOWING about other religions might cause your child to question you, it's not really a very good religion, is it?

Personally, I'm looking forward to the day that my child can bring intelligent debate to the dinner table, but then I acknowledge that I'm weird.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] winterbadger - Date: 2006-02-22 03:47 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 03:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:10 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:17 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:20 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] winterbadger - Date: 2006-02-22 04:20 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 03:58 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:18 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:22 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:32 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:36 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:40 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 10:54 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] winterbadger - Date: 2006-02-22 04:40 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] applez.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:42 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] winterbadger - Date: 2006-02-22 04:50 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2006-02-22 04:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] applez.livejournal.com
As another Real American (TM), I have to concur with:

"WHAT teaching of philosophy in schools?"

We don't even have Civics, and we wonder why children murder children at our schools...

The expectation apparently is that teachers cannot teach religion without proselytizing, and what a child learns in school during one semester a few hours a week will somehow overcome a lifetime's worth of whatever values the family has inculcated.

Indeed, for our teachers are Omnipotent Beings of Untold Power to Pervert Young Minds...clearly they should all drink hemlock and be done with it. ;-) :-/

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:41 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] applez.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:53 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2006-02-22 11:59 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
There's a line in the Father Brown story "The Blue Cross" where the (admittedly, eminently punchable) Father Brown explains how he has identified Flambeau as a false priest. "He argued against reason," he says. "That's bad theology." Commenting on this, Martin Gardner writes that "Father Brown shows himself to be a strict Thomist" - i.e. Father Brown believes, with Aquinas, that the laws of the Universe are ultimately consistent, and understandable, and that scientists who proceed with their research are making a leap of faith in assuming that the results of their studies will continue to make sense - their research is, in a way, an act of private devotion. Dawkins would contest this, though, I expect.

H

Wish fulfilment.

Date: 2006-02-22 12:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com
'Nutter' Smith was dragged away from the still twitching corpse of Father Brown.
"What made you do it, son?" asked Inspector Jenks, sadly.
"'e argued against me." Said Smith. "That's just bloody stupid."

Re: Wish fulfilment.

Date: 2006-02-22 12:13 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Brown's dumpy body twitched, and a faint croak issued from between the dry, parted lips with his dying breath.
"No ... it was because he was an Anglican."
H

Date: 2006-02-22 12:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] raggedyman.livejournal.com
you know that last paragraph pretty much covers my whole opinion of people being offended by an attack on their faith. I mostly agree with the rest of it as well, just that if the last 2 lines could be explained clearly to everyone of faith (and those not of it also) then the world would be a much better place.

Date: 2006-02-22 12:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com
From a religious perspective, people insulting your religion/god/God is cause for pity towards them and perhaps doing good works towards them and praying for them. Detonating yourself in a public place isn't really an option.

Date: 2006-02-22 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] raggedyman.livejournal.com
Agreed, although the bombers argument is that they are defending themselves against an attack on the members of the religion rather than on the religion itself. The right to defend yourself is one that most people follow and understand, and whilst I may not agree with terrorism on any level there is a part in my head that accepts the logic of using such means if Islamics actually don't have any other option they can use and thus must either choose to blow themselves up or be slaughtered (their view, not mine).
Or to put it another way: if someone walked up to you in the pub and punched you in the head going 'thats for being a christian!' would you honestly not retaliate?


To be fair the three faiths of the book all have a history of killing each other, thus they tend to get tetchy about these things and claim that the other two started it first. However the older two also have mostly (relativly) managed to chilling out and understanding the complications of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' (and similar tricky to understand commandments), therefor if Islam follows the same pattern of Judaism and Christianity we should have a ceasation of hostilities by about 3800 AD.

The wierd thing to me is that all 3 of these religions (which have managed to cause most of the major conflicts in the history of mankind) all have a clause which basically reads "if the non-believer is fool enough not to accept the totally obvious then you should be pleasent and friendly to them like you would a retarded child. Its not their fault their too thick to get with the program so being the better person you should give them a break".
But, as stated above, these are also the people who get all confused over 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' so maybe its not such a big suprise after all.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:38 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] applez.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] applez.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:52 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] winterbadger - Date: 2006-02-22 04:53 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2006-02-22 12:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jonnyargles.livejournal.com
I was reading about the Cargo Cult last week - although in a far less academic setting. It turns out one of the missionaries said to the chieftain "Look; you've been waiting twenty years and he still hasn't come - why don't you give up."

The chief replied "You've given your god 2,000 years and he still hasn't returned. Let's wait a little longer, eh?"

Date: 2006-02-22 12:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angusabranson.livejournal.com
heh, I like his reply :)

Date: 2006-02-22 12:24 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
How did the chief know the missionary hadn't been to Communion for 2000 years?

H

Date: 2006-02-22 12:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sea-cucumber.livejournal.com
Some interesting thoughts there, thanks! :)
I think I now see why people were wibbling so much about ID. I personally see nothing wrong with it as a theory (in fact it fits my own bonkers ideas better than any other I suppose) but I can see why it being taught as science is a bit rickety.
See the woe of a religious scientist!
*goes back to the special bouncy padded place where everything is safe*

Date: 2006-02-22 12:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com
The difference is between the meanings of the same word - 'theory'
ID as a 'Theory', as in "I've got an idea!", is fine.
ID as a scientific theory is untenable, because it cannot conform to the requirements of the scientific method.
Having the same word with two rather different meanings appears to confuse many people.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] sea-cucumber.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 01:04 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] blue-cat.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 01:29 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] arcass.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 02:10 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 02:12 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] sesquipedality.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 02:59 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] miss-s-b.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 04:18 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] applez.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-22 11:37 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] davywavy.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-02-23 10:10 am (UTC) - Expand

More on the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Date: 2006-02-23 02:21 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
A propos of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I have just been thinking over our brief conversation last night about the Good Calormene. It occurs to me that if a worshipper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster came face to face with Aslan, Aslan is so wise that he would reassure them that every good deed that they had ever done in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they had in truth rendered to Aslan.

This being the case, it seems to me that nobody with an ounce of faith ought to be in the least worried or affronted by the Flying Spaghetti cult, but should acknowledge that God moves in mysterious ways; that if these people are moved by the Spirit in what seems to us to be a strange fashion, that's nothing to some of what goes on in the Old Testament; and that the sooner they focus their energies less on ephemeral bumper stickers, and more on raising funds for "Spaghetti Action for Overseas Development," and "Pastafarian Aid," the better we should be pleased.

H

Date: 2006-02-23 09:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chrisdilks.livejournal.com
Hey buddy - thanks for visiting my journal.

If (by any random chance) you are a fan of 16bit gaming - visit www.megadrivechamps.org
We're very big in Uruguay.
Page generated Jul. 11th, 2025 10:05 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios