posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 11:13pm on 08/11/2005
orichalcum at 11:13pm on 08/11/2005So, amidst lots of encouraging election news yesterday, I'd like to note that the Kansas Board of Education has legally changed the definition of science in the state of Kansas, as of yesterday.
Previously, science was defined as "The human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. These explanations are based on observations, experiments, and logical arguments that adhere to strict empirical standards and a healthy skeptical perspective."
The new standards describe it as "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
More here
Commentary?
Previously, science was defined as "The human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. These explanations are based on observations, experiments, and logical arguments that adhere to strict empirical standards and a healthy skeptical perspective."
The new standards describe it as "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
More here
Commentary?
(no subject)
Imagine someone wants to make a "scientific" claim about the cheesetasticness of Acme brand cheesy poofs based on the new definition of science. They observe the cheesy poofs. They test a hypothesis, which is "Cheesy poofs are 50% more cheesetastic." They measure cheesiness on a 1-10 point Cheese-o-matic Scale. They run an experiment with Acme-employed taste testers. They argue logically and build a Grand Unified Theory of Cheesiness. Without "strict empirical standards and a healthy skeptical perspective," nothing prevents them from claiming that this charade is "science."
Cheesy poofs aside, I can't help but think that there's a political motivation to this, behind this beyond the whole Intelligent Design thing. What if the populace demands justification for politicians' claims? That can lead to nothing but trouble. This pesky "evidence" thing really puts a wrench in their attempts to tell the populace what's vitally necessary, who's hiding weapons of mass destruction from whom, what the law really says, etc. This "healthy skeptical perspective" sounds frighteningly unpatriotic.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Though the Kansas Board of Education may dislike the sound of "a skeptical perspective," the ID gang (Dembski, Behe, Meyer et al) are comfortable with it -- one of their strongest rhetorical points is that they're merely applying a skeptical eye to cherished Darwinian dogmas. And though many things could be said about the weakness of their arguments, I do not see any sign that they fear criticism or a spirit of skepticism.
They organize conferences and debates, inviting challenge from the best and brightest. They doggedly respond to their critics, though their basic argument hasn't grown much and is showing clear signs of wear. They believe that the normal skeptical and empirical standards of science have (on the question of the origin of life) brought us to an impasse where extra-natural intelligent intervention is the best, perhaps the only available explanation. By taking skepticism out of the science definition, the Kansas School Board has unnecessarily and perhaps unwittingly thrown out one of the few strengths of the current ID movement.
Though I think it's interesting to consider broader political motivations, I think the persistent unpopularity of Darwin among conservative Christians (who like their skepticism selective) is sufficient explanation for how this keeps getting on the political agenda.
With kenjari, I wonder where openness to supernatural mechanisms would lead in applied science. Surely the evidence about the link between prayer and health would justify hospitals retaining a divine intercession team to offer prayer services for all patients? Doctors might even be sued for malpractice if they did not pray for their patients -- after all, it's withholding an often effective form of therapy.