Montana is trying to outdo the rest of the red states

[LJB]

Who decides what is and what is not “pseudoscience”?

“Pseudoscience” is one of those trite buzz words that have been adopted by both sides and has lost whatever teeth it may have had at one time…

[mspart]

Here is the bill:   I would say this is not aimed at theory of gravity.   Squarely on theory of evolution and perhaps Relativity.   But now the arguments here can be based on the language of the bill rather than speculation. 

 

 

mspart

[Crotalus]

10 minutes ago, LJB said:

Who decides what is and what is not “pseudoscience”?

The scientific method or lack thereof. 

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

Here is the bill:   I would say this is not aimed at theory of gravity.   Squarely on theory of evolution...

No surprise there. Let's all shove evolution and the mountain of evidence behind it under a rug because it contradicts our beliefs. 

[mspart]

Given my post above, if they decide gravitational theory is just a theory, if number theory is just a theory, this will get derailed very quickly.   Even for parts of evolution and relativity, it would get derailed very quickly.  I don't think it would be a problem for anatomy or biology as far as what we know concretely and what is taught now in public schools.   Evolutionary theory is fine as far as changes within a specie, but there is not much evidence and a lot of speculation of a specie evolving into a completely different specie.   The term I'm using might be incorrect and perhaps genus might be better.   The issue of the missing link is still very much a thing.   So if they wanted to teach that a strep bacteria can mutate such that it is resistant to antibiotics, that is demonstrable.   But showing that a single cell animal evolves into a human with different processes and organs has no corollary.   It is speculation at this point.  This is sure to elicit various arguments on either side here but I think it is indisputable that the evidence for the macro evolution of this kind is lacking evidence.   As of now, it is speculation. 

mspart

[LJB]

7 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

The scientific method or lack thereof. 

that is a vague enough qualifier that it will satisfy both sides...

 

 

[Crotalus]

53 minutes ago, mspart said:

Given my post above, if they decide gravitational theory is just a theory, if number theory is just a theory, this will get derailed very quickly.   Even for parts of evolution and relativity, it would get derailed very quickly.  I don't think it would be a problem for anatomy or biology as far as what we know concretely and what is taught now in public schools.   Evolutionary theory is fine as far as changes within a specie, but there is not much evidence and a lot of speculation of a specie evolving into a completely different specie.   The term I'm using might be incorrect and perhaps genus might be better.   The issue of the missing link is still very much a thing.   So if they wanted to teach that a strep bacteria can mutate such that it is resistant to antibiotics, that is demonstrable.   But showing that a single cell animal evolves into a human with different processes and organs has no corollary.   It is speculation at this point.  This is sure to elicit various arguments on either side here but I think it is indisputable that the evidence for the macro evolution of this kind is lacking evidence.   As of now, it is speculation. 

mspart

There is a lot to tackle here. First a nitpick, the singular form of species is still just species. 

Regarding evolution, between the fossil record, genetics, biogeography, morphology, etc., there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting macro evolution. The missing link is not, and never really was an issue. That typically refers to a transitional creature between humans and apes. There is evidence in the fossil record, and more recently, of other hominid species that we either share ancestors with or evolved from. And among many other groups, transitional fossils, aka (not so)missing links, are abundant. Again, there is a mountain of evidence to support evolution, but I don't have the time or wherewithal to try and provide it here. The theory of evolution is far beyond speculation. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

2 hours ago, LJB said:

Who decides what is and what is not “pseudoscience”?

“Pseudoscience” is one of those trite buzz words that have been adopted by both sides and has lost whatever teeth it may have had at one time…

Using a trusty dictionary...

Pseudo = not genuine; spurious or sham

Science = the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Put them together, and we're most of the way there.

"Pseudoscience" is neither a buzz word, nor is it trite - it refers to "not genuine science" aka fake science.

One may wonder why anyone would possibly want to promote fake science. Cult leaders, grifters, con artists, and orange ex-presidents - to name a few. They are out there.

 

 

[LJB]

10 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Using a trusty dictionary...

Pseudo = not genuine; spurious or sham

Science = the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Put them together, and we're most of the way there.

"Pseudoscience" is neither a buzz word, nor is it trite - it refers to "not genuine science" aka fake science.

One may wonder why anyone would possibly want to promote fake science. Cult leaders, grifters, con artists, and orange ex-presidents - to name a few. They are out there.

 

 

"psuedoscience" is like most buzz words that get picked up by the masses...

it makes them feel smart using something with that many syllables and it feels clever to them...

i get it...

i do appreciate you reverting back to a more appropriate term "fake science"...

it just fits better with the entire schtick...

[Crotalus]

4 minutes ago, LJB said:

"psuedoscience" is like most buzz words that get picked up by the masses...

it makes them feel smart using something with that many syllables and it feels clever to them...

i get it...

i do appreciate you reverting back to a more appropriate term "fake science"...

it just fits better with the entire schtick...

I'm make it simple for you, pseudoscience is when you have your answer before you ask any questions. Ex: the earth is 6,000 years old. The only schtick is your deflection. 

[LJB]

3 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

I'm make it simple for you, pseudoscience is when you have your answer before you ask any questions. Ex: the earth is 6,000 years old. The only schtick is your deflection. 

interesting...

using that logic, then almost all of what gets pushed for an agenda is "pseudoscience"...

again...

who decides what is "pseudoscience"?

[El Luchador]

5 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

I'm make it simple for you, pseudoscience is when you have your answer before you ask any questions. Ex: the earth is 6,000 years old. The only schtick is your deflection. 

Are you saying there is no way the age of earth is in anyway possible not 4.5 billion years? There is zero room for scientific dissent?  This is fact? 

[Mike Parrish]

16 hours ago, El Luchador said:

You are absolutely wrong,  1 is no more provable than the other.  My issue is so much is taught as fact and that no reasonable person would disagree.  You're doing it here. There is a lot of scientific debate within the theory of evolution and that information is withheld because they want people to think a certain way. That is not education.  

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

ad hominem

hŏm′ə-nĕm″, -nəm

adjective

Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.

Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.

[Mike Parrish]

12 hours ago, Crotalus said:

There is a lot to tackle here. First a nitpick, the singular form of species is still just species. 

Regarding evolution, between the fossil record, genetics, biogeography, morphology, etc., there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting macro evolution. The missing link is not, and never really was an issue. That typically refers to a transitional creature between humans and apes. There is evidence in the fossil record, and more recently, of other hominid species that we either share ancestors with or evolved from. And among many other groups, transitional fossils, aka (not so)missing links, are abundant. Again, there is a mountain of evidence to support evolution, but I don't have the time or wherewithal to try and provide it here. The theory of evolution is far beyond speculation. 

There is no other scientific theory with as much supporting evidence as evolution.

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

ad hominem

hŏm′ə-nĕm″, -nəm

adjective

Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.

Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/theory-evolution

[Mike Parrish]

5 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Are you saying there is no way the age of earth is in anyway possible not 4.5 billion years? There is zero room for scientific dissent?  This is fact? 

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/resource-library-age-earth

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[Mike Parrish]

11 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Are you saying there is no way the age of earth is in anyway possible not 4.5 billion years? There is zero room for scientific dissent?  This is fact? 

Do you know what replaces a dominant scientific theory?

A different theory that better explains the observed data.

Show me a better explanation for the age of the earth than the current theory.
 

[El Luchador]

4 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/theory-evolution

Notice where is says theory. Anyone who hangs onto a theory and dismisses all other theories solely because it inhibits their bias may not be legitimate in their motive. The way you hang onto this as being equivalent to absolute fact and allow no room for alternatives proves you clearly lack an open scientific mind. This is why hacks need to be kept in check. There is most certainly legitimate science that says this theory be wrong, but is primarily rejected because so call educators don't want to have students students thinking otherwise. 

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

Notice where is says theory. Anyone who hangs onto a theory and dismisses all other theories solely because it inhibits their bias may not be legitimate in their motive. The way you hang onto this as being equivalent to absolute fact and allow no room for alternatives proves you clearly lack an open scientific mind. This is why hacks need to be kept in check. There is most certainly legitimate science that says this theory be wrong, but is primarily rejected because so call educators don't want to have students students thinking otherwise. 

You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is.

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

Do you know what replaces a dominant scientific theory?

A different theory that better explains the observed data.

Show me a better explanation for the age of the earth than the current theory.
 

I think the zero point energy theory which has mathematical support needs to be accounted for in this calculation. 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is.

You keep saying that all while rejecting other theories. So easily the same can be said about you. Somehow my openness to a theory being wrong and introducing a student to alternate theories is anti science.  

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

You keep saying that all while rejecting other theories. So easily the same can be said about you. Somehow my openness to a theory being wrong and introducing a student to alternate theories is anti science.  

You keep trying to put things forward that are not scientific theories.
Every post you make confirms that you do not understand what a scientific theory is.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Mike Parrish

[El Luchador]

Just now, Mike Parrish said:

You keep trying to put things forward that are not scientific theories.

Name 1 thing

 

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Name 1 thing

 

Your seeming support for 'teaching the controversy' around the age of the earth.

How about you put forth an alternative to a scientific theory that you think should merit equal time in science class.

[El Luchador]

4 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

You keep trying to put things forward that are not scientific theories.
Every post you make confirms that you do not understand what a scientific theory is.

And every post you make shows your bias in science,  which is exactly what needs to be eliminated from education.  Every theory you insist on teaching had significant scientific barriers and those barriers are kept from students to make them think a certain way and to keep them from information.