# Motivation for American Biology Teachers



## Lawson (Dec 2, 2007)

This chart shows each country's public acceptance of evolution. +1 for the Nordic countries. .


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Lawson said:


> This chart shows each country's public acceptance of evolution. +1 for the Nordic countries. .


How sad.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Further proof of our diminishing place in the world. Can the US ever be number 1 again?


----------



## jkreusc (Aug 14, 2006)

What if I get the top 4 questions right, but simply disagree with the last two questions?

Before blindly agreeing with this research methodology, I'd like to see how they control for that type of response. Does that put me "lower" on the list? Do they include me in the "uneducated red" bar, or the "enlightened blue" bar?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

First, I am not happy with that chart as a very important country was not on the list!

Second, I wonder how many US biology teachers do not believe in evolution either?

Very sad results but on the other side, the US is still a world leader in biological and pharmacy research and we still crank out Nobels on a regular basis. The meritocracy at work IMO.

I wonder what a similar study on economics would show?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

jkreusc said:


> What if I get the top 4 questions right, but simply disagree with the last two questions?
> 
> Before blindly agreeing with this research methodology, I'd like to see how they control for that type of response. Does that put me "lower" on the list? Do they include me in the "uneducated red" bar, or the "enlightened blue" bar?


Sorry. A passing grade on this test is 100% correct.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I'm so upset that I didn't meet with the approval of atheistic evolutionists.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

JRR said:


> How sad.


yes, +1


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jkreusc said:


> What if I get the top 4 questions right, but simply disagree with the last two questions?
> 
> Before blindly agreeing with this research methodology, I'd like to see how they control for that type of response. Does that put me "lower" on the list? Do they include me in the "uneducated red" bar, or the "enlightened blue" bar?


I would say the last two questions are to validate each other. Note under the "True" of 5 and 6, the total = ~ 100%, which is important as the two questions are mutually exclusive.

I wonder if the choice of red and blue was arbitrary though?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

AlanC said:


> I'm so upset that I didn't meet with the approval of atheistic evolutionists.


Such a statement only describes the narrowness of your mind; while it is certainly unlikely that an atheist would be a creationist, many evolutionists are not atheists.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

AlanC said:


> I'm so upset that I didn't meet with the approval of atheistic evolutionists.


Your fashion sense has my approval. But then again, I am not an atheist


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

rip said:


> Such a statement only describes the narrowness of your mind; while it is certainly unlikely that an atheist would be a creationist, many evolutionists are not atheists.


I assure you the people who are behind the linked website are atheists. You are naive if you think otherwise.

There is also such a thing as practical atheism.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

AlanC said:


> I assure you the people who are behind the linked website are atheists. You are naive if you think otherwise.
> 
> There is also such a thing as practical atheism.


Practical atheism, warding off the dark ages.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Practical atheism, warding off the dark ages.


We try, anyway.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> We try, anyway.


We're not doing too well looking at the chart. Maybe if a Dem gets in the white house science won't be a bad thing anymore like it currently is.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> We're not doing too well looking at the chart. Maybe if a Dem gets in the white house science won't be a bad thing anymore like it currently is.


Nah, there are plenty of Dems that do not think so clearly either. As I alluded to above, go question many, many Dems on economics. I could make a case that economics is a liberal version of the creation/evolution battle. Heck, I could narrow it down to just the topics of minimum wage and taxation. Also, I am willing to bet there are more than a few creationist Dems.

Stupidity is bi-partisan.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I went to private schools. Most of my teachers believed in creationism. A few of them believed God used evolution to create life over millions of years rather than creating life in six 24 hour days. I believe the latter version. But to be honest, I couldn't care less about who is right. I always found the origin of the species chapter to be the least interesting part of science. Chemistry, anatomy, physics and biology etc. were far more interesting to learn about, and much more useful.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Well, at least the US stands over Catholic Latin America and the various Islamic nations when it comes to enlightenment! That's not doing too badly, right?

The USA has always been staunchly anti-intellectual, and sometimes I think these backwards attitudes aren't so much religious as they are unwillingness to learn "hard things" like science.

I mean, look at abortion - "right to life" isn't so much about religious theories of conception as it is about ******** wanting to control the wimminfolk; that, and a desire to "punish" women for being "loose" by making them have children they either don't want or aren't ready to or capable of caring for. God's got nothing to do with it.

...

Upon reflection, I should be regarding the creationists in the US as a huge market to sell *something* to. Find the silver lining, so to speak.

DCH


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> We're not doing too well looking at the chart. Maybe if a Dem gets in the white house science won't be a bad thing anymore like it currently is.


Science isn't a bad thing in the current White House. That's a very dishonest thing to say IMHO.

There is a candid debate over the role of Federal taxpayer funds in the application of science in controversial areas that violate a majority of taxpayer's moral beliefs. That's legitimate disagreement over the role of a republic.

Would you agree with a federally funded 'conversion therapy' program?

I'm guessing you would wish to see such a project either banned or funded privately, but I could be wrong. If I am I would love to hear your argument.

Or even more specifically, how do you feel about this case?

Social issues in Technology is a growing area of 'our discontent'. My personal view is public school internet access should be controlled on an inclusion basis by grade (instead of exclusion). Approved sites related to relevant curricula should be listed on a site publicly available for review by parents and other interested parties. Other sites should be accessed by private means in the home, etc.

If a course dealing with sexuality has made it into the curricula, then sites that deal with those issues would be available to those students via a system similar to approving textbooks. The parents, the ACLU and everyone could fight it out the same way they do with what makes it into textbooks and what textbooks are used in specific districts. It is my opinon that some groups are conveniently utilizing the big-pipe to escape appropriate oversight. I would include LBGT groups along with hate groups and religious groups.

I am particularly mystified at the attitudes and statements that relegate all people of faith to the irrational, unreasonable, fascist pile. I believe in God, I believe in a Creator, I believe marriage should be one man/one woman. I have a top 1% IQ, I have significant post-graduate education, and I'm generally well informed. If scientific activists would clearly delineate what from why you'd find more acceptance for the existant process of evolution. Some of the foremost stem cell researchers are believers in intelligent design. As I understand it more than a few are Catholics. Are they 'science deniers' too?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Science isn't a bad thing in the current White House. That's a very dishonest thing to say IMHO.
> 
> There is a candid debate over the role of Federal taxpayer funds in the application of science in controversial areas that violate a majority of taxpayer's moral beliefs. That's legitimate disagreement over the role of a republic.
> 
> ...


That's how it is in my wife's district. She teaches 3rd grade, and her class is limited on their internet searching based upon their grade level. It's not perfect, since it does block some rather useful sites, but it's better than allowing the kids to find things inappropriate for their grade level.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Science isn't a bad thing in the current White House. That's a very dishonest thing to say IMHO.
> 
> There is a candid debate over the role of Federal taxpayer funds in the application of science in controversial areas that violate a majority of taxpayer's moral beliefs. That's legitimate disagreement over the role of a republic.
> 
> ...


How does one have a 'dishonest' opinion? My perception of the current president is that he has no interest in science and is basically an obstructionist.

Science is not controversial. Science is just science. People may choose to believe scientific facts or not based on their moral or political views but that doesn't change the science. The controversy is within the person no the science.

I don't know what 'conversion therapy' you're talking about.

Social issues are social issues and like philosophy always debated. Scientific facts are facts until they can be disproven. You may believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't change the evidence that it is round.


----------



## Lawson (Dec 2, 2007)

AlanC said:


> I assure you the people who are behind the linked website are atheists. You are naive if you think otherwise.
> 
> There is also such a thing as practical atheism.


Let's not forget agnostics. Atheists are not the only non-theists around.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> How does one have a 'dishonest' opinion? My perception of the current president is that he has no interest in science and is basically an obstructionist.
> 
> Science is not controversial. Science is just science. People may choose to believe scientific facts or not based on their moral or political views but that doesn't change the science. The controversy is within the person no the science.
> 
> ...


It's dishonest because you made a unsupported declaratory statement.

"... science won't be a bad thing anymore like it currently is."

That can easily be distinguished from your new statement "My perception of the current president is that he has no interest in science." That's a fair statement. In my opinion it is incorrect, but it is an honest and legitimate opinion for you to have.

The controversy is over how to pursue and fund certain scientific projects consistent with our Constitution, there is not a controversy over the science in the person of the President.

As someone with an opinon based on what "just is" and demanding application of the scientific method you should be more careful of how you represent your perceptions and the opinions you form from them.

You can't have it both ways. Well you can, but you're being dishonest if you do.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> That's how it is in my wife's district. She teaches 3rd grade, and her class is limited on their internet searching based upon their grade level. It's not perfect, since it does block some rather useful sites, but it's better than allowing the kids to find things inappropriate for their grade level.


Yes, they should only be able to view ACCEPTED sites.

Such as most textbooks now have a website with additional materials and links to teacher and student materials and activities.

So you have an include list rather than an exclude list. That way we aren't playing wack-a-mole for the rest of our lives.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You can't have it both ways. Well you can, but you're being dishonest if you do.


Dishonest vs. pedantic, which is more irritating?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes, they should only be able to view ACCEPTED sites.
> 
> Such as most textbooks now have a website with additional materials and links to teacher and student materials and activities.
> 
> So you have an include list rather than an exclude list. That way we aren't playing wack-a-mole for the rest of our lives.


I think their problem with some useful sites being blocked lies more with their system administrator's lack of knowledge in how to set up their system. She doesn't seem to be the brightest techie.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Dishonest vs. pedantic, which is more irritating?


dishonest.

followed closely by insulting when proven wrong.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> It's dishonest because you made a unsupported declaratory statement.
> 
> "... science won't be a bad thing anymore like it currently is."
> 
> ...


The problem is that you're ignoring significant facts. Forget about abortion for a minute, look at all the incidents of the administration silencing or censoring the scientific publications of agencies and employees for political reasons (especially around global climate change, but also by falsifying government information relating to the effectiveness of contraceptives and sex education). Look at Bush's statement that "both sides" of the evolution debate should be presented in schools, when in fact there is no scientific debate as to the fact of evolution. I'm sure there are more examples, but that's what I'm thinking of at the moment.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> dishonest.
> 
> followed closely by insulting when proven wrong.


Deus ex machina.......I've been struck by Zeus' thunderbolt


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Lawson said:


> This chart shows each country's public acceptance of evolution. +1 for the Nordic countries. .


It could be worse. Apparently we do not teach Science in Soviet Canuckistan, er, Canada ...


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Dhaller said:


> I mean, look at abortion - "right to life" isn't so much about religious theories of conception as it is about ******** wanting to control the wimminfolk; that, and a desire to "punish" women for being "loose" by making them have children they either don't want or aren't ready to or capable of caring for. God's got nothing to do with it.


Wow. That's quite a theory you've cooked up there.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The problem is that you're ignoring significant facts. Forget about abortion for a minute, look at all the incidents of the administration silencing or censoring the scientific publications of agencies and employees for political reasons (especially around global climate change, but also by falsifying government information relating to the effectiveness of contraceptives and sex education). Look at Bush's statement that "both sides" of the evolution debate should be presented in schools, when in fact there is no scientific debate as to the fact of evolution. I'm sure there are more examples, but that's what I'm thinking of at the moment.


I don't disagree with your issues, I do disagree that I am ignoring them.

Isn't it dishonest to decry a pedantic assault about a declaratory statement related to science?

Science is pedantic (T or F)?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

W = Devilman

https://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I don't disagree with your issues, I do disagree that I am ignoring them.
> 
> Isn't it dishonest to decry a pedantic assault about a declaratory statement related to science?
> 
> Science is pedantic (T or F)?


Your post about why science isn't supported in the White House was based exclusively on opposition to abortion, and you drew a parallel to so-called conversion therapy. Since the main topic of the tread is evolution as it is viewed in countries around the world, and since there are other examples, such as the ones I cited, in which the Bush administration is either refusing to recognize real science or is trying to suppress real science for political reasons, I think it is legitimate to say that you are ignoring those issues.

Your statement that mpscb's statement was dishonest implied that when challenged he either refuse or was unable to provide evidence for his statement. In fact, he made a blanket statement, and it would have been legitimate for you to challenge that if you had evidence to support such a challenge, but making a blanket statement is not, in itself, dishonest.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Your post about why science isn't supported in the White House was based exclusively on opposition to abortion, and you drew a parallel to so-called conversion therapy. Since the main topic of the tread is evolution as it is viewed in countries around the world, and since there are other examples, such as the ones I cited, in which the Bush administration is either refusing to recognize real science or is trying to suppress real science for political reasons, I think it is legitimate to say that you are ignoring those issues.
> 
> Your statement that mpscb's statement was dishonest implied that when challenged he either refuse or was unable to provide evidence for his statement. In fact, he made a blanket statement, and it would have been legitimate for you to challenge that if you had evidence to support such a challenge, but making a blanket statement is not, in itself, dishonest.


No, it was not about abortion at all, but thank you anyway for your faulty assumption.

I am not ignoring those issues. You continue to claim you know what I think, but you keep proving you do not. How can you know what W thinks?

Those issues are simply not relevant to a blanket statement - science is bad. They are relevant to the 2nd statement which I already said was fair game. One is largely qualified and the other is stated as fact, but even he admitted that required his perception. In a statement about another's perception of science that is highly ironic.

Jack, you're really going to defend blanket accusations about the internal attitudes of other people? Didn't they teach you about false positives in your science courses?

Would you also defend those if the "right" started making the same types of comments in threads on teachers, gay marriage, and evolution (not to mention the subject you raise - abortion)?

To say W's policies are anything other than political hypocrisy and expediency requires knowledge of the man none of us have.

Come on, Jack. You're kidding, right? "W thinks science is bad?" That's a legitimate unqualified claim to make? You can't think of any science at all W might think is good?


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

I find it amusing how debaters reduce what to teach in school to a clash between science and Christianity; it's either one or the other. When one opposes science, it is automatically assumed the person is a fundamental Christian; never is it even considered there are shades of beliefs, or no belief at all, between the two sides.

As far as the U.S. being behind the pack when it comes to scientific advancement, that is totally wrong! We are the reason why science is a popular belief these days. The U.K., too, has also contributed a lot to the progression and spread of science to other cultures. However, the question: is this a good thing, is science good? I don't think so. Science and all its discoveries aren't universal. The only reason one, a scientist, can confirm his findings is because they conform to the method of thinking he has invented for himself, and sometimes, forced on others. If he stopped thinking "scientifically," all the discoveries of science would mean nothing and have no significancce. The understanding of something based on experience is just one of many ways of thought.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> In fact, he made a blanket statement, and it would have been legitimate for you to challenge that if you had evidence to support such a challenge, but making a blanket statement is not, in itself, dishonest.


Okay, to be pedantic, is not one of the basic rules of rhetoric that if someone makes a claim, the burden of providing evidence lays with him, not the person challenging the claim? I mean, I can claim you have sex with aliens and I do not think any reasonable person would think the onus of proof lay on you to disprove my claim.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Okay, to be pedantic, is not one of the basic rules of rhetoric that if someone makes a claim, the burden of providing evidence lays with him, not the person challenging the claim? I mean, *I can claim you have sex with aliens *and I do not think any reasonable person would think the onus of proof lay on you to disprove my claim.


Do they look like Natasha Henstridge from _Species_?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Do they look like Natasha Henstridge from _Species_?


In your dreams :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Religion teaches morality - it does not explain natural phenomenon. So far natural selection and tree of life theory are the best we have. Intelligent design and creationism cannot be evaluated using the scientific method. I do not understand why evolution makes people so uncomfortable.


----------



## jkreusc (Aug 14, 2006)

Bob Loblaw said:


> Religion teaches morality - it does not explain natural phenomenon. So far natural selection and tree of life theory are the best we have. Intelligent design and creationism cannot be evaluated using the scientific method. I do not understand why evolution makes people so uncomfortable.


I think that many of those people that you think are "uncomfortable" with evolution are not actually that uncomfortable.

I believe in Intelligent Design, but have an excellent understanding of evolution and am not uncomfortable with it.


I fully believe in microevolution as it has been proven in controlled experiments. It is, after all, how one builds a labradoodle.
I have a problem with macroevolution (such as that which occurred during the Cambrian Explosion) that has yet to be observed in a lab or shown through fossil records, and other more educated people agree. https://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119 (I would argue that discovery.org is not a "Christian propaganda machine")
I have serious questions about the possibility of abiogenisis as prescribed by the miller-urey experiment. Although it is widely used as evidence that life could have formed on its own, subsequent studies show that the experiment was greatly flawed to the point of uselessness. . https://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4111/ (Okay, that is a Christian propaganda site, but it does present a good overview of this particular point)
I believe in long creation days - that the "day" used in Genesis is used in a similar fashion as the english expression "back in the day" meaning "age" or "time period" https://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html for the explanation of this translation
I am pro-choice. God will do the judging and not I. I also feel that many an abortion has brought many people to faith.
I am pro stem cell research in an unrestricted fashion. During the birth of our first child, we donated stem cells.
I don't think we should cut evolution out of the curriculum, but I do feel that we are doing our children a disservice by presenting theory as fact and not teaching them how to dig deeper and make decisions for themselves.
Oh, and religion is not teaching natural phenomenon. The bible teaches (in my opinion) that the earth was created in 7 ages and that god defined the natural phenomenon. It is still incumbent upon the scientific community to understand that phenomenon.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

jkreusc said:


> [*]I don't think we should cut evolution out of the curriculum, but I do feel that we are doing our children a disservice by presenting theory as fact and not teaching them how to dig deeper and make decisions for themselves.


A serious question, why only theory of evolution? Should people be exposed to alternatives to the theory of electricity or realitivity? What other theories are taught in science that should equally have alternatives taught?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> A serious question, why only theory of evolution? Should people be exposed to alternatives to the theory of electricity or realitivity? What other theories are taught in science that should equally have alternatives taught?


Wow, excellent question. My answer would be that as the primitives had no mythical stories about these topics, indeed, no knowledge of them, they do not directly contradict a sacred book, so are not nearly as suspect. But they are suspect.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Bob Loblaw said:


> *Religion teaches morality - it does not explain natural phenomenon.* So far natural selection and tree of life theory are the best we have. Intelligent design and creationism cannot be evaluated using the scientific method. I do not understand why evolution makes people so uncomfortable.


Natural phenomena do not exist outside of creation. Everything that happens in the world is subject to rules and laws set in place at the creation. We can apply the scientific method at the micro level however that which is being evaluated is still subject to creation. It is part of creation. Science and creation should not be at odds. Even the Pope has stated as such.

I think that Evolution should be taught however it needs to be clarified that the theory has many holes. Many of the links are missing, including the wet dream of adherents to evolutionary dogma; that between ape and man. Unfortunately that which we call evolution occurs on such a slow scale that it is difficult to measure.

Remember that Darwin's theory was based on observation alone. It was based on socio-economic theories put forth by the likes of Adam Smith explaining how societies and social order evolve over time.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I think that Evolution should be taught however it needs to be clarified that the theory has many holes. Many of the links are missing, including the wet dream of adherents to evolutionary dogma; that between ape and man. Unfortunately that which we call evolution occurs on such a slow scale that it is difficult to measure.
> 
> Remember that Darwin's theory was based on observation alone. It was based on socio-economic theories put forth by the likes of Adam Smith explaining how societies and social order evolve over time.


There are elements missing from the periodic table, too. Should we start teaching alternatives?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Bob Loblaw said:


> There are elements missing from the periodic table, too. Should we start teaching alternatives?


That is a fallacious argument. The periodic table is a list of knowns. It is not a theory that is trying to explain a set of processes. The periodic table is not meant to be a be-all, end-all. I'm not sure evolution is trying to be either but it sure seems that way to its proponents.

By the way, I'm not anti-evolution. I just don't subscribe to it as a religion and am willing realize that it is as flawed as any other human attempt to explain the world. Evolution is not trying to explain how life came about; it is trying to explain how, once created, life _*evolved*_.

As for the creation/origin of the universe, I don't see how the Biblical explanation has any less merit than the secular explanation.


----------



## timw (Dec 5, 2007)

I'd like to see if there's a correlation with knowledge of biology and wearing of cuffs vs hemmed pants.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Science is not controversial.


Theories come and theories go. Theories are controversial.



> Scientific facts are facts until they can be disproven. You may believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't change the evidence that it is round.


A fact is unchangable, therefore subjects like macro evolution are still theories.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

WA said:


> Theories come and theories go. Theories are controversial.
> 
> A fact is unchangable, therefore subjects like macro evolution are still theories.


Scientific facts (laws) only state relationships between data, typically as a formula. They are not interesting in that they don't attempt to explain anything.

Scientific theories explain the reason for observable phenomenon. *Any and all* scientific explanations of how something works is a theory. Examples include Special Theory of Relativity, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory and the Theory of Evolution.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> Scientific facts are facts until they can be disproven. You may believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't change the evidence that it is round.


Flat and round would be the same thing. I think you may mean spherical. That's one of the problems with non-scientists discussing science. They lack precise vocabulary.

Actually, you've presented an excellent example of how theories are refined, but how the foolish claim they have been disproved.

Original Theory: Flat Earth Theory. 
The earth is flat. The deviation of surface curvature of a flat plain would be 0% per mile. Worked for thousands of years without much problem. This theory works very well for 99% of the people. We build houses, towns and roads using this theory.

Refined Theory: Spherical Earth Theory
The earth is a sphere about 25,000 miles in circumference. That is that the deviation is 0.000126% per mile from the original theory. Not really much of a difference from the above, but everyone wants to rant and rave about how WRONG* the Flat Earth Theory is. Really, it's not very wrong unless you're involved in global navigation or building bridges hundreds of meters in length.

But of course neither of those theories is correct. The earth is an oblate spheroid. We've accurately measured that the equator bulges about 27 miles more than the poles. Oh my, the Spherical Earth theory should be thrown out!! **

Of course not, because none of these are "wrong" they are only refinements of the previous theory.

*0.000126% isn't zero, but anyone but the most picky would figure it is close enough. Come up with an example from everyday life where you even care about thousandths of a percent.

** Even this one is "wrong" if you want to get even more picky. If fact, the equatorial bulge is somewhat distorted, thus resulting in earth resembling many north Americas: somewhat pear shaped.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WA said:


> Theories come and theories go. Theories are controversial.
> 
> A fact is unchangable, therefore subjects like macro evolution are still theories.


In science it is not uncommon for what are generally accepted as "facts" to change as theories change (the world is flat, the world is at the center of the universe, there are only four elements from which all things are made, etc).

We need to be careful in saying "facts" are unchangeable. Why we consider some things "facts" is based on how we view/understand the world with our vision focused by how we are trained (for an example of how our training/experience focuses our vision, what I see (or how I internally interpret it) when I look at a mountain is probably as a geologist, a lot different than what an architect might see. I will see folded rocks, glacial sculpting, etc while the architect will see building sights. An artist will see something different and so will a forester). This can apply to scientific "facts" as well with what is considered a "fact" shown not to be by a new theory.

Also, just because something is a scientific theory, does not make it less than a "fact". Much of what science does for us is based on theories versus facts. (They got to the moon using theories).

Gravity is a theory instead of a fact. (Gravitational theory does change with Newton's theory of gravitation superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity as Newton's theory and equations do not work for some things (although for others may allow a "good enough" approximation). Some of what the theory of relativity tries to describe is now being explained better by string theory (of which I can't understand a thing).)

I hate the arguments made that evolution (or whatever other scientific theory is in doubt, climate change, you name it) is only a theory and therefore is somehow less or not valid. Science looks for rules that explain how things work. In regards to evolution, the theory works (and can be observed to work). Creationism does not work and can not be tested. As science learns more about evolution, it will be better able to predict and explain it.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Scoundrel said:


> As far as the U.S. being behind the pack when it comes to scientific advancement, that is totally wrong! We are the reason why science is a popular belief these days. The U.K., too, has also contributed a lot to the progression and spread of science to other cultures. However, the question: is this a good thing, is science good? I don't think so. Science and all its discoveries aren't universal. The only reason one, a scientist, can confirm his findings is because they conform to the method of thinking he has invented for himself, and sometimes, forced on others. If he stopped thinking "scientifically," all the discoveries of science would mean nothing and have no significancce. The understanding of something based on experience is just one of many ways of thought.


In the science of contaminant hydrogeolgy which I am most familiar with, this is changing. When I finished graduate school 23 years ago, the US was the top in the world in this field. Now, researchers in the EU and Canada (no, its not the 51st state!) are equal and in some areas surpassing us. I will be at an international conference in May where more and more of the presenters are international (when this bi-annual conference started over 10 yrs ago, you would not see many international presenters). A lot of the papers in this field being published are now coming from international sources. Again, when I started, most were from the US. (They are still generally publlished in English). Also, a lot of the cutting edge research is now being done in Europe.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

android said:


> Flat and round would be the same thing. I think you may mean spherical. That's one of the problems with non-scientists discussing science. They lack precise vocabulary.
> 
> Actually, you've presented an excellent example of how theories are refined, but how the foolish claim they have been disproved.
> 
> ...


+10 000

Which is to say, our "facts" tell us more about the tools available to us than they do about the world/universe we apprehend with them.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

eg1 said:


> +10 000
> 
> Which is to say, our "facts" tell us more about the tools available to us than they do about the world/universe we apprehend with them.


EXACTLY!! (plus our training, socialization to an extent and any other preconceptions we have)


----------

