Montana is trying to outdo the rest of the red states

[Mike Parrish]

https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2023-02-07/bill-would-ban-the-teaching-of-scientific-theories-in-montana-schools

[Plasmodium]

24 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2023-02-07/bill-would-ban-the-teaching-of-scientific-theories-in-montana-schools

Yikes!

[El Luchador]

I think this another case of Don't Say Gay. This bill isn't fully developed and people are making broad assumptions as to how it will be applied.  

It is important that kids are taught that theory is not fact and there should be some balance. 

Kids are clearly being taught that some science is fact when it is not. The famous "The science is settled " that people love to throw around. Making that statement is about as unscientific as you can be. 

This is more of a critical thinking issue.  

[Mike Parrish]

You clearly don't understand what a theory means in science.

 

Stay in your lane, dingdong.

[BerniePragle]

10 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2023-02-07/bill-would-ban-the-teaching-of-scientific-theories-in-montana-schools

This sounds like the ultimate "Us v Them" move.  I'll use a phrase favored by the Conservatives... They have an agenda.  I think that's pretty obvious.  Easier to snooker and control people when they're stupid AND ignorant.
I snicker, as anybody with 1/4 of a brain should, when I hear this "earth is only 6000 years old" or such nonsense.
Questioning the Theory of Gravity?  Wow!  We do not know EXACTLY how gravity works and may never know. Certainly with this head-in-the-sand type of education we never would.
They want to differentiate between theory and fact.  I would start by differentiating between belief and fact.
Without modern scientific theory, methods, and thought process, these morons would still be riding donkeys and wearing fig leaves.  Pretty obviously not using computers and cell phones, driving cars, etc.  
I try not to paint with too broad a brush, but the picture of this Daniel Emrich just reeks of the "holier than thou" hiding deep, dark secrets.  A la Josh Duggar and many, many more.

[El Luchador]

4 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

You clearly don't understand what a theory means in science.

 

Stay in your lane, dingdong.

I absolutely do. I have a significant science background.  I studied the physics of energy and industrial studies with an emphasis on industry and the environment. This was 35 years ago and I never worked in  these fields, but I most certainly do understand theory vs fact. In almost every area of science there are logically competing theories.  Even electron flow vs hole theory is not settled science. Gravity is only observable and has widely varied theories. Even the age of the universe is widely disputed but is taught as fact. Zero point energy is often dismissed simply because it take away credibility from to many other theories.  Science has become political and that shit needs to stop. 

[BerniePragle]

1 hour ago, El Luchador said:

I absolutely do. I have a significant science background.  I studied the physics of energy and industrial studies with an emphasis on industry and the environment. This was 35 years ago and I never worked in  these fields, but I most certainly do understand theory vs fact. In almost every area of science there are logically competing theories.  Even electron flow vs hole theory is not settled science. Gravity is only observable and has widely varied theories. Even the age of the universe is widely disputed but is taught as fact. Zero point energy is often dismissed simply because it take away credibility from to many other theories.  Science has become political and that shit needs to stop. 

I have a bit of a scientific background myself.  I won't go into the details because then we'll just be into the usual "leftist insulting my intelligence" thing.

When I watch some of these The Way the Universe Works type of shows, I snicker.  There are a whole lot of assumptions that go into the conclusions "we" draw about the very, very small and the very, very large, and many other things.  I have no doubt that much of what we think will be disproven in 50, 200, 5000 years.  That's the way Science works.  Heck, I've always said that 500 years ago, the smartest people in the world thought the earth was flat.  Of course that statement isn't exactly true, but it only served to prove that we're always learning and to get a laugh.  The sad part is that some people still believe the earth is flat.  I don't think many of them are scientists, or have ever taken and passed a legitimate science course.

Science is far from infallible but I'll definitely take it over a bunch of fairy tales written thousands of years ago, retold, interpreted, and translated countless times, always with an ulterior motive.  Don't fool yourself, this is EXACTLY what this bill is about.

When you say get the politics out of Science, I would say this bill in Montana is one of the biggest examples of politics trying to take over Science and our educational system.
I even remember that great scientific mind, George W Bush (lol), reassuring us there was no such thing as Global Warming.  Was that not politically motivated?  Oil man Bush and oil man Cheney deciding the validity of Global Warming?  No thanks.

[Crotalus]

1 hour ago, BerniePragle said:

Science is far from infallible but I'll definitely take it over a bunch of fairy tales written thousands of years ago, retold, interpreted, and translated countless times, always with an ulterior motive.  Don't fool yourself, this is EXACTLY what this bill is about.

Spot on Bernie. 

No doubt the same people who want to remove the teaching of scientific theories want to teach biblical ideas in science class in their place. Regardless of someone's educational background, if they argue scientific theories shouldn't be taught because they are not "facts", they are either an idiot or have these ulterior motives. 

[El Luchador]

You guys are making broad assumptions about a bill that hasn't been passed or debated. You are simply applying your bias which ironically what has so many people upset with their schools. There is no way the way you are portraying this is accurate as to how it will be implemented. But it allows you to paint yourself and other leftist as the intellectual ones and you opposition as stupid. 

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, El Luchador said:

You guys are making broad assumptions about a bill that hasn't been passed or debated. You are simply applying your bias which ironically what has so many people upset with their schools. There is no way the way you are portraying this is accurate as to how it will be implemented. But it allows you to paint yourself and other leftist as the intellectual ones and you opposition as stupid. 

Look at the author for your answers.

[jross]

Yikes is right!  This proposal is ludicrous as written.  Of course evolution theory should be teachable.  But, so should the Intelligent Design theory.  Even if its more philosophy than science by definition, it was created by and has some support from scientists.

Also, agreed that the "science proves" phasing is increasingly used to sell lies.  That is no reason to ban teaching science theory.

[Mike Parrish]

5 minutes ago, jross said:

Yikes is right!  This proposal is ludicrous as written.  Of course evolution theory should be teachable.  But, so should the Intelligent Design theory.  Even if its more philosophy than science by definition, it was created by and has some support from scientists.

Also, agreed that the "science proves" phasing is increasingly used to sell lies.  That is no reason to ban teaching science theory.

One of these is a scientific theory, the other is a theological tenet.

Science class is for scientific theories.
Comparative religions class is for the rest.

[Crotalus]

1 hour ago, El Luchador said:

You guys are making broad assumptions about a bill that hasn't been passed or debated. You are simply applying your bias which ironically what has so many people upset with their schools. There is no way the way you are portraying this is accurate as to how it will be implemented. But it allows you to paint yourself and other leftist as the intellectual ones and you opposition as stupid. 

So you recommend waiting for a bill that sounds like a terrible idea to pass and then see how it is implemented before pointing out it was a terrible idea? 

[El Luchador]

47 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

So you recommend waiting for a bill that sounds like a terrible idea to pass and then see how it is implemented before pointing out it was a terrible idea? 

No that's the Nancy Pelosi method, I'm saying wait to hear the debate and see if it amends into something of substance.  Reading the bill I would agree,  but it's just a rough draft. Clearly the bill doesn't have enough detail to do anything with. 

[El Luchador]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

One of these is a scientific theory, the other is a theological tenet.

Science class is for scientific theories.
Comparative religions class is for the rest.

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.  

[LJB]

as long as our kids will continue to be taught that men menstruate and are perfectly capable of getting pregnant then we will all figure it out...

that passes for "science" nowadays, yes?

[BerniePragle]

26 minutes 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.  

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge."
-Daniel J. Boorstin, Librarian of the United States Congress

OK, I'll bite.  Who is the ubiquitous "they" and exactly how do "they" benefit from having you erroneously believe something?  Try to answer without the overused "control", "trampling on my freedoms", etc.

[Plasmodium]

I'm highly uncomfortable with public schools teaching Creationism in something other than a religion class.  For starters, it would have to be watered down by being agnostic with respect to any particular religion.  Who would even want religion taught to their kid by a biology teacher?

[El Luchador]

25 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge."
-Daniel J. Boorstin, Librarian of the United States Congress

OK, I'll bite.  Who is the ubiquitous "they" and exactly how do "they" benefit from having you erroneously believe something?  Try to answer without the overused "control", "trampling on my freedoms", etc.

They are the Leftists in charge of education/indoctrination. 

[BerniePragle]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

They are the Leftists in charge of education/indoctrination. 

OK.  You got halfway there...

[Crotalus]

57 minutes 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.  

Holy shit. You keep proving you don't actually know what scientific theory is. It's not provable by definition. But it does use observation and experimentation to attempt to disprove them. The other is pseudoscience that does the exact opposite. 

Also, scientific theories are not taught as fact. They are taught as the best explanation for the given thing they attempt to explain, based on experimentation and observation. Some people clearly don't comprehend the difference, however. 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Crotalus said:

Holy shit. You keep proving you don't actually know what scientific theory is. It's not provable by definition. But it does use observation and experimentation to attempt to disprove them. The other is pseudoscience that does the exact opposite. 

Also, scientific theories are not taught as fact. They are taught as the best explanation for the given thing they attempt to explain, based on experimentation and observation. Some people clearly don't comprehend the difference, however. 

All you managed to do was hurl insults, tell me exactly where I'm wrong.

[El Luchador]

Are you saying there are not scientific theories in opposition to the commonly taught theories?

[Crotalus]

29 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

All you managed to do was hurl insults, tell me exactly where I'm wrong.

There were no actual insults in my comment, though you may have inferred a couple. I also used an oversimplification of the differences between scientific theory and pseudoscience to tell you how you were wrong about them both being the same because they are both not provable. Those differences are exactly why they should not be taught as equal competing ideas in a science class. 

[Crotalus]

55 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Are you saying there are not scientific theories in opposition to the commonly taught theories?

There are surely countless competing scientific theories in all different scientific disciplines, but this bill aims to ban teaching any of them. If there is sufficient data to support them, then they should be taught. But pseudoscientific theories should not be taught alongside them. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Crotalus