...the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.Branding, which has actually taken a hit lately if you have been watching, is the presentation of something as it isn't so that you will accept that thing against your better judgement and even your best interests. Is this what the Kansas Board of Education did to science yesterday?
Branding Science
Posted by on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 in - 13 comments
Comments
Cyn - November 9, 2005 9:41 AM
Moving ever so closer to a fundamentalist nation. What goes around comes around.
alfons - November 9, 2005 4:56 PM
Kansas? Familiar ring, right?
Thermodynamics is just a theory, not a fact.
alfons - November 9, 2005 4:59 PM
(That No Entropy sign would make a great t-shirt btb)
David Janes - November 9, 2005 5:20 PM
- Toronto has banned use of pesticides on lawns. Religion or science?
- I was born on June 29th: ask the female closest to you what my sign is.
ALan - November 9, 2005 5:25 PM
A. Science.<p>B. Pure Chaldean witchcraft.
alfons - November 9, 2005 5:29 PM
C. Chance.
David Janes - November 9, 2005 5:34 PM
Well (A) is absolute nonsense, from a scientific perspective. After not finding any results favorable to their postition, the "precautionary principle" was invoked. The PP has exactly the same relation to science as ID does -- it merely apes the form.
As regards to (B), there's more people wasting their time on superstition than will ever be affected by ID.
Arthur - November 9, 2005 6:35 PM
As regards to (B), there's more people wasting their time on superstition than will ever be affected by ID.
So do you think 'superstition' should be taught in schools?
David Janes - November 9, 2005 6:37 PM
Where did you ever get that impression?
David Janes - November 9, 2005 6:55 PM
OK, let me be a little more clear: there's lots of pseudo-science floating around, that we're happy to have there for whatever reasons. Perhaps we should be mocking, laughing and doing something about that.
Arthur - November 9, 2005 7:02 PM
there's lots of pseudo-science floating around, that we're happy to have there for whatever reasons.
OK, I go with you:
Do you think 'pseudo-science' should be taught in schools?
Yes or no answers only.
David Janes - November 9, 2005 7:32 PM
"No."
Do you think public policy should be based on pseudo-science. Yes or no answer, with the potential for explanitory paragraphs to follow.
Alan - November 9, 2005 8:11 PM
Do you think things are "pseudo-science" when you "not finding any results favorable to their postition" is the test? I think you have to back this blurt of an argument up with at least a few links, David. Otherwise it is too blurty. There are a lot of non-scientists sticking their little learning nose is as far as I can tell without backing links. <p>But this is a good one. Formulate some arguments for framing as a general question to the class on Friday.