![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyThere'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]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 11:55 am (UTC)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."
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 12:08 pm (UTC)You see what I mean; there you go, getting all dogmatic.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 12:27 pm (UTC)La, sir, I feel it is YOU who is getting dogmatic! I'm giggling.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 03:02 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 03:35 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-02-22 03:47 pm (UTC)Myself, I agree, but obviously the really insecure religious person in that situation won't. :-)
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!
Because people in that situation/mindset seem to equate "learning about" with "being subsumed by". Which tells one a lot about their desire to "teach" other people *their* views...
It all comes back to the problem (IMO) of people holding views (religious or otherwise) that inherently and intrinsically deny the possibility of any other view being valid. Which insist they are not just universal truth for those who believe in them, but universal truth for ALL people. Not all Christians or Jews (or, I assume, people of other faiths) or nonreligious people hold such views, but the ones who speak most loudly often do.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 03:51 pm (UTC)Surely a better turn of phrase would be "Hardly (or /not) many", rather than "not all"? A good case in point is that the Uk has many hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and fewer than a hundred took part in recent demonstrations about those Danish cartoons. A vanishingly small minority, but they got all the news-time.
"not all" implies that the loud demogogues are a majority, which they most certainly are not?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:10 pm (UTC)As a beheadscarved muslim collegue at work said only the other day...
"I wish they'd all just shut up and let us get on with our lives."
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:17 pm (UTC)I ahve a couple of chums in the foreign/diplomatic service. What they tell me is that what's not getting reported in the press over here are the loud attempts to moderate/calm the situation in the Arabic press. All we get is bonkers Muslims setting things alight - the reality is somewhat different.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:20 pm (UTC)I have a chum in the US diplomatic service. She's one of the liberal lefties I was talking about earlier ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:20 pm (UTC)One could presume from the fact that only a small number of people join in loud and violent demonstrations that only a small number of people agree with those demonstrators, but I think that that is a dangerous assumption, as dangerous as assuming that such demonstrators speak for all the members of their faith(s).
All I *know* is "not all", and I am generally loathe to make a broader statement than that.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 03:58 pm (UTC)* applause *
I think that's something we all need to guard against, though. Myself included. Just because someone disagrees with you does not necessarily mean they are deluded or stupid or naive... although, of course, they CAN be all of those things ;) I abhor the ad hominem argument, and try to avoid using it whenever I can; apart from anything else it's lazy and illogical.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:18 pm (UTC)Ahem.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:32 pm (UTC)Something of a tautology, don't you think? :)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:36 pm (UTC)* tickletickletickle *
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 10:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:40 pm (UTC)Agreed. It's just easier (or shoudl be) for those of us whose belief systems don't *insist* on everyone else being wrong in order to be valid.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:42 pm (UTC)I would also add that it makes me particularly suspicious how non-science and non-academic beliefs attain their following. What precisely is their inculcation method that makes their believes so vulnerable to concepts either experimentally testable, or debatable? :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:40 pm (UTC)"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
Date: 2006-02-22 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:53 pm (UTC)