Naw, all those categories of people you speak of are exactly skeptical -- skeptical of "the government's" (in quotes) official story. I'd rather say that taken as whole our education system is weak in logic, research skills, and mathematics. If you get those, you get science automatically, because science is constructed upward from math, logic, and research skill. It's not the science itself that we lack, but rather, the underlying components. Says me. Me, too, because, you know, in a literal sense we're all just passengers on the same large spaceship zooming through outer space together, and none of us can get off the ship. So it's good to get along with one another. :jawdrop:
I think, more importantly, it's good to be able to have public discourse and disagreements without killing each other. I guess that's the same as getting along? I don't believe that ideas or beliefs should be protected, but I do think that education is the foil of bigotry, for the vast majority of people (you'll always get nasty people, but most bigotry is the result of ignorance).
If a person's version of skepticism takes them from "there is incomplete knowledge in evolution, therefore Intelligent Design," or "the government sometimes lies, therefore flat Earth," well, they're applying skepticism wrong. I'd agree with you in some respects, but disagree with you in others. The assertion that you get science automatically from sufficient mathematical instruction reminds me of the XKCD comic: I don't think that giving people advanced calculus will let them know how to analyze a scientific paper, or look at a consensus topic like evolution or climate change and make an informed decision. We present a great deal of scientific information, but very little on how to conduct focussed inquiry or how to research the field; both of these strike me as specific to science, rather than something that can be acquired via some other field.
Yes I think as a branch of mathematics statistics is probably more valuable to the general population. Combine that with how to analyze how well research is conducted and you have a population capable of actually interpreting data.
I don't mean you get specific scientific knowledge, as in you'll automatically know chemical formulas. I do mean, though, that (a) the language of all science is mathematics, and (b) math is thinking. Well, Eddie would say he's "thinking" so I'll rephrase that: math is itself a particular way of thinking that coincides with the best that science can hope to be. That's because "advanced calculus" is not a subject, but change it to Calc 3 and complex analysis and PDE, and I most definitely do. Absolutely yes. Math is logic itself. Proving crazy things such as there are more irrationals than rationals is the deepest sort of thinking anyone can do. Absolutely yes. Color me biased because this was my field in college, but ... this was my field in college, so I have a "been there and done that" experience. :dunno:
ok so next question, would you put climate change deniers in the same catagory as flat earthers? If not why not?
Except that specific scientific knowledge is the only way to understand the operation of advanced concepts in science. Evolutionary theory didn't come about through mathematical analysis but observation of a vast body of specific data. We can say that the language of science is mathematics, and I suppose that makes sense in a generalized sense, but it doesn't make sense in the actual practice of science - being able to read through a paper relies as much on the cultural conventions of science and knowledge of scientific techniques as it does logic. I'd pretty much die of happiness if there was a synthesized math and logic course for high schoolers though :] I think it depends upon your metric as to 'deep thinking.' Leaving that alone, instructing people in rational thinking is a separate subject. Math is a subject that you can't jump ahead on. To do calc 3, you need calc 2, calc 1, pre calc, algebra 2, algebra 1, geometry, addition, etc., etc. Science doesn't operate the same way necessarily - I'm taking genetics this summer despite working in three separate genetic labs and engineering custom Joe Raptor organisms. Showing students the operation of something like claim - evidence - reasoning modes of epistemology are the only way I can see to ground the logic of mathematics in actual praxis.
Is ID a conspiracy theory as climate change denial? Is 'big museum giftshop' a thing? Id definitely put anti GMers in that catagory too. But climate change denial really is a big issue, and its literally built on the same lies that flat earth theory is. Anti Nasa, anti science, big conspiracies of thousands/millions of people.
I'd argue yes. There was a conspiracy of Pennsylvanian political figures that tried to teach ID in schools, despite the shortage of scientific evidence supporting it, a conspiracy of textbook writers who attempted to write a covertly religious textbook about biology, etc. Same distrust of authority figures, falsification of evidence, accusations of fraud, etc. In my more paranoid moments I suspect conservative support for anti-evolution sentiment is dedicated at undercutting science in order to discredit knowledge that might constrain economic development.
I would say support of ID is a real conspiracy, whereas the opposite is true for climate change denial, people mistakingly claim all the evidence for climate change is faked, which is obviously rediculous.
Climate change denial is a conspiracy, in the literal sense of the word. The methods are very similar to the conspiracy to suppress and distort data by the tobacco industry previously. ID is a similar such conspiracy, though more ideological than profit-driven. Although political battles over ideology form part of climate change denial as well: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...strategies/links/5650b68608ae4988a7ab9d45.pdf The fact that ignorant people are unwitting pawns of these conspiracies does not change the fact that, at their heart, actors who know the data does not support them are distorting evidence to support a political and economic position. I wouldn't say that flat earthers are part of a deliberate conspiracy, but rather have latched on to the imaginings of crazy people and, I suspect, a fair amount of trolls who like to stir up the crazies.
I can't link it here because of a swear, but Lawrence Kraus made some good points about people clinging to kooky theories on Joe Rogan's podcast. Search for "Joe Rogan & Lawrence Krauss on why Flat-earthers exist" on youtube.
This is where we disagree. Biology is not my thing, for example, but I intuitively understand the process by which biologists reach their conclusions -- or should reach their conclusions -- because the process is logic. And math is logic. And I've taken enough science courses to know that statistical analysis is crucial to the scientific method, and stats = math, so I can talk with a biologist about what he's experimenting on, and how the experiment is conducted, and how he reached his conclusions -- not the details with all the fancy vocabulary, but the process that he's following. I know that somewhere toward the end of his testing process he will compile the data into graphs and then draw important conclusions off those graphs, but interpreting graphs and data is math. So he's going to speak my language when it matters most. Ditto dinosaurs, geology, anything else. The procedure behind all of science makes sense, so when someone takes shortcuts ... it's just obvious. Of course each field has it's own specialized vocabulary, but at the end of the day they're all juggling numbers. For probably any branch of physics, though, turn the book upside down and turn a calculus book upside down, pages open, and lay them next to each other. The pages will look the same because physics is just math done in a particular context. Ya, me, too. :cry: You can't teach it to 8 year olds because they're brains aren't ready, but I think juniors or seniors are ready. This is true, but the chain pretty much stops at Calc 2. At that point you can simultaneously take almost any two classes. Almost. But ... don't chemistry majors have to take 2 semesters of calculus also? We could maybe say that the almost-last-course of foundational math is the beginning point for a BS degree in chemistry. Yes. It becomes ingrained, second nature. And then when someone starts talking about "chem trails" the klaxon alarm goes off and I have a dozen questions for that person.
Ya, I would agree. My working definition of "conspiracy" is "group of people plotting to do something." To the extent that climate-change deniers want to change laws, I suppose it is a conspiracy. ID people want to change school courses and/or textbooks, so I suppose that would be a conspiracy. But flat earthers, though ... what do they want? I'm not aware that they're trying to do anything.
But could you read a paper and say "Wow, why'd they use an ELISA there, a Western Blot is more appropriate!"? Not necessarily arguing that mathematical concepts don't underlie both techniques or the data they display, but contextual knowledge is important. But could you duplicate his work or make insights into the field? Not without the specifics. I'd agree that math is one of the languages of science, but I'd have difficulty taking an English scholar seriously if they said "Each field has its own vocabulary, but at the end of the day, they're all juggling letters." I think you'd be surprised. The C-E-R model is being successfully employed at an elementary level, it's kinda cool! I don't think they'd be ready for symbolic logic or proofs yet, but it's a way to get them started that previously hasn't been employed. I pursued calc 1 back when I was doing philosophy, you've inspired me to take up calc 2! Ehh, I think some of these weird claims, like ID, make sense independent of specific knowledge. It's one of the reasons for ID's staying power; we've had folks espousing some variant or another of it since William Paley. It's only through specific surveys of biology that you can see that that malarkey don't make sense.
flat earthers, think that everyone else is hiding the truth about the earth being flat. Hence they think there's a conspiracy AGAINST flat earth theory, I'm not sure who by.... maybe those people who make globe drink trolleys!
It mainly seems to be entered around taxes and big government. They pretend they do stuff in space and pocket the money.
So I just watched a clip of Kron Gracie talking to Eddie Bravo about flat earth. It's "The Flat Earth : Kron Gracie Speaks Some Flat Earth Wisdom" on youtube, and contains bad language. It seems his biggest problem with the idea of a spinning, spherical earth is that he cannot comprehend how we stay on it. If that isn't a failure of science education, I don't know what is. The fact that so many people are clinging to ideas that belong in prehistory should be a big red flag to us as a society. He also came out with the usual "I'm part of a higher consciousness" "I'm special" schtick. That's a harder nut to crack, but at least education can channel it in less stupid ways. There was a great comment from the uploader: "UrBrain Wash: Why so much hate in your hearts for this man ? if you think you have truth then go debunk the flat earth and stop calling this man dumb he is 1000 times smarter than you psyop fool fresh out of brain washing school who see flat water and still think it curves ,where can i find this mountain on your ball earth where i can climb the side of it without breaking a sweat ? it should be possible on a ball morons but we will never find it cause the earth is flat SILAHIM ΜΙΧΑΛΗΣ: hahahaha. You probably missed science class. UrBrain Wash: WOW BIG DEAL I MISSED BRAIN WASHING , SO I GUESS I MISSED WORDS LIKE " HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY "TYPICAL LOST SHEEP COMMENT"
