DOCSLIB.ORG

A Tangential Scientific Method

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Tangential Scientific Method A TANGENTIAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD ON THE NATURE OF SCIENCE WITH REFERENCES TO CHEWBACCA, STORK EATING ALIENS, A FEW STEVES, ONE INSTANCE OF THE WORD ³)8&.´$1'Ī48,7(3266,%/<ī7:29(5</$5*(&+,/'5(1 by David Ng 1 For the last couple of years, when I’m speaking or lecturing to a larger audience, I would sometimes throw out the following question: “Who is Chewbacca?” I do this because I’m curious on whether there are actually people in this world who have never heard of Chewbacca. Which, as a big fan of Star Wars, is a possibility that escapes me. Still, without fail, there are always a few. In fact, if I were to plot graphs around this question, I would notice that “Ignorance of Chewbacca” has been going up in a slow but steady fashion over the last few years. Furthermore, my small and caveat laden sample of data currently suggests that at least 5% of the world has no clue what this Chewbacca thing is [1]. Then, of course, things would get strange. Because usually at this point, I might ask those knowledge- able in the audience, to describe “Chewbacca” to those who are not. Here, the references to Star Wars VSHFLÀFDOO\DQGVFLHQFHÀFWLRQLQJHQHUDOFRPHRXW7KLVLQFOXGHVGLVFXVVLRQVDERXWFRSLORWLQJVSDFH ships, ripping arms off, and a description of a weapon that is a cross between a laser and a crossbow. The word “wookie” will inevitably surface, and then, remarkably you might say, someone will begin to make Chewbacca sounds – something best described as a long vibrating groan suggestive of yearning [2]. In- deed, if I give it a chance, the whole lecture hall might even begin making Chewbacca sounds, which is something that is both uniformly glorious and bizarre at the same time. Interestingly, none of this really seems to help the 5% who confessed to being Chewbacca ignorant. If anything, the 5%, looking at the strange proceedings around them, tend to look confused if not a little frightened. I bring this up, because this silly idea of Chewbacca ignorance is a bit like asking people, “What is sci- ence?” It’s one of those things where a proper answer is actually very rich in detail, and nuanced in ways WKDWFDQEHVXUSULVLQJ)XUWKHUPRUHWKHVHGHWDLOVDQGQXDQFHVWHQGWREHRQO\REYLRXVWRWKRVHÀUPO\ embedded within science culture itself. And much like the Chewbacca example, if you explain this to a person who is not part of this culture, it would probably sound a little bewildering and frightening too. To illustrate this, let’s try something right now. Find someone you know who isn’t into science. popperfont.net | thisishowitalkscience.tumblr.com | @ng_dave 1 This is probably pretty easy, since this is likely ality of how science is taught in schools – there are most people. Now ask them point blank, “What is information hierarchies that must be covered in or- science?” Undoubtedly, you will get all manner of der to get to the next level, and because the volume responses - many of which will reference graphs, of that information is intense, there is simply little measurements and technology, perhaps with nods time for students to reexamine the basic principles to things like physics, chemistry and biology. But RIWKHVFLHQWLÀFPHWKRGDQGRIVFLHQFHFXOWXUHLW- if you listen carefully, I would bet that the respons- self. Furthermore, this does not even include those HVDUHYDJXHDWEHVWDQGFHUWDLQO\QRWDUHÁHFWLRQ young students who decide to avoid the sciences of the richness involved in what I consider a prop- altogether. er answer. Sort of like the injustice that goes with describing Chewbacca as simply, “a character in a Which brings us back to aforementioned mention VFLHQFHÀFWLRQPRYLHµ of shame. After all, shouldn’t we encourage all stu- dents and citizens to continually reassess the scien- To me, this is a shame. Not the Chewbacca part WLÀFPHWKRGPRUHVRVLQFHDQHOHPHQWDU\VWXGHQW (which is a different kind of shame), but the bit is hardly in the best position to fully appreciate its about science. To me, the idea of the general public FRPSOH[LW\",VQ·WWKHVFLHQWLÀFPHWKRGDQLFRQRI reacting to the fundamentals of science literacy, in rationality - something that you hope all decision a way that the aforementioned 5% might react to a makers, from individuals making small choices to wookie sound, is a very bad thing. In fact, I would leaders making large ones, would take time to ap- suggest that this confusion or lack of familiarity preciate fully? over science is actually a dangerous thing. This is because, unlike wookies, science has an increas- Unfortunately, this isn’t how the world currently ingly active and prominent role in real life. works. Which is disappointing: because regardless of all this talk about society and danger and de- As well, this lack of clarity is not about science cisions, it would do us well to be reminded that literacy in the sense that we worry about citizens WKURXJKLWDOOWKH6FLHQWLÀF0HWKRG DQGZKDWLW who do not know about greenhouse gases, or how has produced) is, quite frankly, awesome. DNA is replicated, or how differential calculus is GRQHLQRWKHUZRUGVLW·VQRWUHDOO\DERXWVSHFLÀF So for now, we’ll end this section with something technical details (although this is important too). EDVLF:H·OOHQGLWZLWKDÁRZFKDUWGHSLFWLQJWKH But rather, it is mostly about whether a person is VFLHQWLÀF PHWKRG 3HUKDSV VRPHWKLQJ ZLWK VWHSV literate of the process; whether they appreciate the like the below: VWHSVDQGSDUDPHWHUVZKLFKGHÀQHKRZVFLHQFHLV done. It is mostly about these points because they 1. See something. represent a framework that provides the world with 2. Think of a reason why. a very powerful way of knowing things (episte- 3. Figure out a way to check your reason. mology for those who prefer big words). 4. And? 5. Now, everyone gets to dump on you. 6. Repeat, until a consensus is formed. Such parameters, of course, are often neatly laid out in what many would call “7KH6FLHQWLÀF0HWK- But don’t forget: this representation is, by no od.” Almost everyone will learn about this at some means, a complete picture or even necessarily a point in their lives, although it appears to be a topic correct picture. Indeed, Sir Francis Bacon himself, that mostly presents itself at younger ages, at the el- a man often considered to be the “Father of Sci- ementary school levels for instance. However, one HQWLÀF0HWKRGµ>@PD\GLVDSSURYHZLWKWKHVLP- DOVRÀQGVWKDWDVWKHVWXGHQWJHWVROGHULWVSUHPLVH SOLFLW\RIWKLVÁRZFKDUW will be continually diluted by an increasing glut of science technical detail. This is an unfortunate re- 2 It is, however, as good a place to start as any: and early 1980’s. Essentially, what folks observed was KRSHIXOO\VXIÀFLHQWWRDWOHDVWXWWHUWKHVHQWLPHQW that there was a discernable decline in Chinese ´3XQFKLW&KHZLHµ stork numbers [4]. As well, there was also a drop in fertility rates [5]. In other words, storks in China were disappearing and the Chinese appeared to 2 be having less babies. “You see something interesting…” But why? 7KLVOLWWOHSKUDVHLVRIWHQWKHVWDUWRIWKHVFLHQWLÀF At one level, we might suppose that the two are not process. In that it all begins when someone, pos- at all related. It could simply be a correlation and sibly you, has noticed something intriguing. This nothing more. But for the purposes of our discus- doesn’t mean that it has to be interesting to every- sion, let us suppose that we are trying to surmise one – just as long as it’s interesting to someone. In whether the two are ultimately connected - whether fact, sometimes, the science will stop right there. there was truly a causative element involved. In other words, the act of just “observing” might be good enough – think about how everyone would Here, some of the hypotheses might assume that IHHOLI\RXZHUHWKHÀUVWWRGLVFRYHUDFHUWDLQNLQG there is a continuum involved, in that one of the of creature. observations is actually directly responsible for and logically leads to the other observation. For Still, most conventional views of science would as- instance, if we play into the stork/baby mytholo- sume that you’ve seen something curious enough gy, where storks do indeed deliver babies, perhaps to merit the question “why?” And it is in that in- we can say that the decline in stork numbers was spired act of asking a question, where arguably the in turn causing the baby effect. Others, however, PRVWLPSRUWDQWSDUWRIWKHVFLHQWLÀFPHWKRGWDNHV might ponder whether there is a more central rea- form. son for the two trends. In this case, we might talk about a hypothesis that suggests one prominent We are, of course, referring to the notion of the hy- thing at play that is simultaneously responsible for pothesis: which according to the Oxford Diction- both outcomes. DU\LVGHÀQHGDV “A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation” For us, in less eloquent terms, we say that this is the part where you try very hard to “think of a reason why.” Furthermore, when you do this, you inadvertently set the scene for the next stage of the PHWKRGE\GHÀQLQJKRZDSHUVRQPLJKW´ÀJXUHRXW Here, we can try to distinguish the two scenarios ways to check your reason why.” To a scientist, this by looking at the evidence more closely. Does the last phrase is a colloquial way of talking about ex- stork decline happen before or after the baby de- periments. cline? What exactly are the numbers associated with the declines? Important, because even with For fun, let’s explore these concepts by using an the drop taken into account, the actual numbers of example. Here, we’ll focus on some interesting storks might still be more than enough to cover the observations that were noted in China during the number of babies born. In any event, as you can see, a hypothesis can be quite nuanced and is really only a small step in a much longer path. For amusement’s sake, let’s take this idea of nuance even further and look at three potential hypotheses presented below [6].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Idea of Natural Selection in Politics, Schools, and Courts
    FREEDOM TO ERR: THE IDEA OF NATURAL SELECTION IN POLITICS, SCHOOLS, AND COURTS Paul D. Carrington* The biologists are surely correct who proclaim that "there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence."' But worthy of their salute is the wisdom of President Jefferson that "error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it."2 Jefferson's wisdom was uttered in response to the deep division between Anglophiles and Francophiles that seriously threatened the stability of the Republic he governed.3 It now serves to call into question the quoted biologists' next sentence stating that "[i]t is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."4 Especially questionable is the wisdom of elite federal courts acting on the advice of such eminent biologists to invoke the Constitution of the United States to suppress minor scientific heresies uttered in the education of adolescents by their parents or * Professor of Law, Duke University. It is pertinent that I served as an elected trustee of the Ann Arbor Board of Education in 1970-1973; and as chair of the Public Education Committee of the Michigan Civil Liberties Union 1968-1978. In the latter role, I assisted in the repre- sentation of numerous teachers, parents, and children in their quarrels with local school boards. It is also pertinent that in 2000-2006, I served as a member of the National Academy of Science Panel on Law, Science and Technology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impotent Fury of William Dembski
    THE DESIGN REVOLUTION? How William Dembski Is Dodging Questions About Intelligent Design By Mark Perakh Who is William A. Dembski? We are told that he has PhD degrees in mathematics and philosophy plus more degrees - in theology and what not – a long list of degrees indeed. [1] To acquire all those degrees certainly required an unconventional penchant for getting as many degrees as possible. We all know that degrees alone do not make a person a scientist. Scientific degrees are not like ranks in the military where a general is always above a mere colonel. Degrees are only a formal indicator of a person’s educational status. A scientist’s reputation and authority are based on his degrees only to a negligible extent. What really attests to a person’s status in science is publications in professional journals and anthologies and references to one’s work by colleagues. This is the domain where Dembski has so far remained practically invisible. All his multiple publications have little or nothing to do with science. He is a mathematician who did not prove any theorem and derived not a single formula. When he writes about probability theory or information theory -- on which he is proclaimed to be an expert -- the real experts in these fields (using the words of the prominent mathematician David Wolpert) “squint, furrow one's brows, and then shrug.” [2] When encountering critique of his work, Dembski is selective in choosing when to reply to his critics and when to ignore their critique. His preferred targets for replies are those critics who do not boast comparable long lists of formal credentials – this enables him to contemptuously dismiss the critical comments by pointing to the alleged lack of qualification of his opponents while avoiding answering the essence of their critical remarks.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JEFFREY MICHAEL SELMAN, et al., ) No. 1:02-CV-2325-CC ) Plaintiffs, ) BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ) OF COLORADO CITIZENS v. ) FOR SCIENCE, KANSAS ) CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE, COBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) MICHIGAN CITIZENS FOR ) SCIENCE, NEBRASKA Defendants. ) RELIGIOUS COALITION ) FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION, NEW MEXICO ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, NEW MEXICANS FOR SCIENCE AND REASON, NEW MEXICO COALITION FOR EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE AND MATH EDUCATION, AND TEXAS CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS LYNN FANT 254963 Counsel of Record P.O. Box 668 Marietta, GA 30061-0668 Tel: (770) 590-7294 Attorney for Amici Curiae Colorado Citizens for Science, et al. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ii INTRODUCTION ...............................................1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ....................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................2 ARGUMENT ...................................................2 I. INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES MISREPRESENT EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE ..................................2 II. THERE IS NO GENUINE SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY OVER THE VALIDITY OF EVOLUTION ..............................6 CONCLUSION .................................................10 - i - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1251 (2000)) ....................................6 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .........6 Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947). .................9 Other Texts Gary L Bennett, A Review of Of Pandas and People as a Textbook Supplement, NCSE Reports, Nov. 2000 .......................................7 Marshall Berman, Intelligent Design Creationism: A Threat to Society--Not Just Biology, The American Biology Teacher, Nov. 2003 ......................5 Wesley R. Elsberry, et al., The “Meyer 2004" Medley, Panda’s Thumb .......9 Douglas J.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument from Authority What Is an Argument from Authority?
    Argument from Authority What is an argument from authority? • “We should believe P because an expert, or authority, believes P.” “This fallacy is committed whenever we argue for some point, not because it is well grounded in fact or logic but because of the authority of the person who presented it. The standing or prestige of a recognised authority is said to guarantee the truth of the claim, and anyone who doubts it is made to feel presumptuous or egotistical. The thrust of the argument is, “Who are you to challenge the judgment of this authority or the experience of that expert?” Burton Porter, The Voice of Reason, p. 96 p. 97: “In a sense, this seems reasonable because we do accept ideas on authority all the time. No one can check the evidence of everything that is claimed, so we must depend on the information provided by authorities.” • We need to remember that authorities are often wrong. • E.g. “Just as the doctrine of organic evolution is universally accepted among thinking biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain ranges is an established principle in geology.” Thomas Clark and Colin Stearn, The Geological Evolution of North America: A Regional Approach to Historical Geology, p.43 (Ronald Press, 1960) Philip Tetlock experiment • In the mid-1980s, the psychologist Philip Tetlock convinced 284 political experts to make nearly a hundred predictions each about a variety of possible future events. • Tetlock insisted that the experts specify which of two outcomes they expected and also assign a probability to their prediction.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Origin of Academic Freedom Bills by Means of Precedential Selection: and Why Efforts Should Be Taken to Facilitate Their Extinction Marcus Pierce Almond
    Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 2013 On the Origin of Academic Freedom Bills by Means of Precedential Selection: and Why Efforts Should be Taken to Facilitate Their Extinction Marcus Pierce Almond Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship Recommended Citation Almond, Marcus Pierce, "On the Origin of Academic Freedom Bills by Means of Precedential Selection: and Why Efforts Should be Taken to Facilitate Their Extinction" (2013). Law School Student Scholarship. 382. https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/382 ON THE ORIGIN OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM BILLS BY MEANS OF PRECEDENTIAL SELECTION: AND WHY EFFORTS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO FACILITATE THEIR EXTINCTION By: Marcus Almond Seton Hall Law Advanced Writing Requirement: Expert Witnesses ·~.~~'->/ Summer, 2011 INTRODUCTION Though courts have uniformly found that legislative efforts to restrict the teaching of the theory of evolution (TE) in public schools violate the Establishment Clause, the tactics of those intent on doing so have consistently adapted to such precedential selection. Most recently, Academic Freedom Bills (AFBs), which permit science teachers to introduce instructional materials that argue against TE, have been proposed in thirteen state legislatures across the United States. Though at present only Louisiana has passed such a bill into law, AFBs are currently pending in Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. State legislators should reject further efforts to enact AFBs into law. AFBs, and the organizations that lobby for them, misrepresent the views of the scientific community regarding the viability of TE. They obfuscate professional and legal protections of teachers' rights to academic freedom, and they propagate inaccurate scientific information.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution Debate from Philosophy Forum Feb, 2004 All Quotations Are in Red
    Evolution Debate from Philosophy Forum Feb, 2004 All quotations are in red. All responses to quotations by John Donovan unless otherwise noted. Quote: Originally Posted by Radrook I am thoroughly familiar ith the scientific method. Accusing me of not being familiar simply shows that you are willing to reach idiotic conclusions and make ridiculous accusations in order to advance your ideas. I didn't say you don't know scientific method (although I'm dubious about that as well) I said you didn't understand evolutionary theory, which you clearly don't or you would not conflate it with abiogenesis, the existence of God and the beginning of the universe. You also would not riddle your posts with so many erroneous statements about what the evidence is and isn't. Quote: Speciation proves NOTHING since the animal remains essentially the same except for some slight modifications. Huh??/Wha the wha??/ Speciation is evolution. It's the very definition of evolution. Are you sure you understand what the term means? It means that one population within a species has changed enough that it has become a different species. That is evolution. QED. Game over. Quote: That these modifications would result in the ridiculous transformations that you blindly belief in is merely conjecture--actually more akin to a fairy tale. I have no idea what you imagine that I "blindly belief in" but I assure you I do not believe in any ridiculous transformations, only in excruciating slow, incremental adaptations over huge amounts of time. I do not take this on faith or conjecture but on the overwhelming physical evidence which supports it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Evolution the Myth of Creationism
    THE SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION AND THE MYTH OF CREATIONISM KNOWING WHAT’S REAL AND WHY IT MATTERS ARDEA SKYBREAK Insight Press Chicago © 2006 by Ardea Skybreak. All rights reserved. Published in 2006 by Insight Press. Printed in U.S.A. first edition ISBN: 0-9760236-5-2 Contents INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 1 AN OVERVIEW . 7 So What Is Evolution Anyway? . 10 What All Evolving Systems Have in Common . 11 Millions and Billions of Years . 13 What the Fossils Tell Us . 18 So What Did Darwin Figure Out? . 23 What Darwin Learned About Selection from Farmers . 25 Has Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Really Been Tested and Proven to be True? . 28 SUPPLEMENTAL INSERTS FOR CHAPTER 1: The Earliest Emergence of Life . 8 Not Everyone Wants You to Learn about Evolution . 11 Creation Myths . 14 Dating Techniques . 17 Change was in the Air . 22 Genetic Drift and Founder Effects . 30 The Continued Existence of Life on this Planet is Not a Given . 32 CHAPTER 2 THE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION IN ACTION IS ALL AROUND US . 39 Evolution in Action Today . 40 Rapid Evolutionary Change Observed in a Population of Moths . 40 Where Would We Be Without Fruit Flies? . 42 One Species Splitting Into Two on Opposite Sides of the Grand Canyon . 46 A Few Words on Creationists . 52 SUPPLEMENTAL INSERTS FOR CHAPTER 2: The Moth Flap . 44 Evolution in Action — The Distribution of Sickle Cell Genes in Human Populations . 48 An Interesting Example of Evolution in Action in the Treatment of HIV Infections . 51 CHAPTER 3 REVIEWING A FEW KEY POINTS ABOUT ADAPTATION .
    [Show full text]
  • Open Thesis FINAL.Pdf
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education INTELLLIGENT DESIGN AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY: THE CASE OF KANSAS A Thesis in Educational Theory and Policy by John Yoshito Jones © 2007 John Yoshito Jones Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2007 ii The thesis of John Yoshito Jones was reviewed and approved* by the following: David A. Gamson Associate Professor of Education Thesis Adviser Chair of Committee Mindy L. Kornhaber Associate Professor of Education Dana L. Mitra Assistant Professor of Education Hiroshi Ohmoto Professor of Geochemistry Jacqueline Stefkovich Professor of Education Head of the Department of Education Policy Studies *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Advocates of an alternative explanation of life’s origins, Intelligent Design, have lobbied hard since the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which banned “creation science” from public schools, to effect educational policy change through local and state-level school boards. This study examines one such lobbying effort, the 2005 attempt to modify the Kansas Curricular Standards for Science so that biological evolution is actively challenged in the classroom, by analyzing the actions and motivations of several members of the Kansas Board of Education as well as non-Board participants through personal interviews and contempoary media reports. Board minutes from 1999 to 2007 and transcripts from the Board’s May, 2005, public hearings on evolution are also analyzed. This study asks, “what strategies have creationists developed in the wake of the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision striking down creation science and how have those strategies been employed?” The question’s presumption, that Intelligent Design advocates have employed new strategies to advance a creationist agenda, is validated in the study through coding the language used by the interviewees, the Board minutes, and hearings transcripts, as well as a review of contemporary media coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphology of Steve by Eugenie C
    The Morphology of Steve by Eugenie C. Scott[*], Nicholas J. Matzke[*], Glenn Branch[*], Stephen T. Abedon[S][$], Stephen Addison[S] Stephen L. Adler[S] Stephen B. Aley[S] Stephen C. Alley[S] Steven I. Altschuler[S] Stephen Robert Anderson[S] Stephen W. Arch[S] J. Steven Arnold[S] Stevan J. Arnold[S] Steven N. Austad[S] Stephen Azevedo[S] Stephen Charles Bain[S] Stephen M. Baird[S] Steven A. Balbus[S] Steven W. Barger[S] Stephen John Barnett[S] Stephen Barrett[S] Steven J. Baskauf[S] Stephen Joseph Richard Battersby[S] Steven C. Beadle[S] Steven K. Beckendorf[S] Stephen Beckerman[S] Steven R. Beissinger[S] Steven M. Bellovin[S] Stephanie J. Belovich[S] Steve G. Belovich[S] Stephen P. Bentivenga[S] Steven Bergman[S] Steven Bart Bertman[S] Stephen Blackmore[S] Steven M. Block[S] Steven Bodovitz[S] Stephen A. Boffey[S] Stephen Patrick Bonser[S] Stephen H. Bowen[S] Stephen Bowlus[S] Steven G. Boxer[S] Steven E. Brenner[S] Steven D. Brewer[S] Stephen Brick[S] Steven Briggs[S] Steven Brill[S] Stephen Brown[S] Stephen Brown[S][!], Stephen L. Brown[S] Stephen R. Brown[S] Steven W. Brown[S] Steven B. Broyles[S] Stephen G. Brush[S] Stephen H. Bryant[S] Stephen Burke[S] Stephen Burnett[S] Stephen J. Burns[S] Stephen D. Busack[S] Steven W. Buskirk[S] Steve Butcher[S] Steven N. Byers[S] Stephen D. Cairns[S] Stephen Cameron[S] Steven K. Campbell[S] Steven Carlip[S] Stephen R. Carpenter[S] Steven A. Carr[S] Steven M. Carr[S] Steve Carroll[S] Steven B.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Day 2010
    CLIMATE DAY 2010 http://climate.nasa.gov/ClimateDay/ Sponsored by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in partnership with the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE)-West and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service BEWARE OF PSEUDOSCIENCE/BAD SCIENCE!! Pseudoscience: n. A theory, methodology or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation; an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudoscience “The practitioners of (what scientists refer to as) pseudo-science generally know and even understand established scientific thought; they just reject it (for reasons which may have little to do with science itself).” http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html Bad science: “By way of contrast, purveyors of bad science are generally [people] who just don't know any better.” http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html Sites that educate people on recognizing pseudoscience and bad science: How to talk to a climate skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ National Center for Science Education A site that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. They also have background information on the “Intelligent Design” movement. http://www.natcenscied.org/default.asp Project Steve http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve Bad Science A website dedicated to correcting the misinformation that teachers and parents teach to their students/children. It contains common misconceptions and their correct explanations. It links to a number of different sites, including “Bad Meteorology” and “Bad Astronomy.” http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html Pseudoscience: What is it? How can I recognize it? There is a chart on this site that compares science with pseudoscience.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spark Student Journal for Social Justice
    RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN CONTEMPORARY U.S. The Spark Student Journal for Social Justice Special Print Issue: Religious Intolerance in the Contemporary U.S. [ 1 ] THE SPARK The Spark is a web-based student-produced publication that makes academic work pertaining to social justice issues available for the benefit of others within the Whitman College community. By allowing students to educate other students on issues of political and social importance, we hope to free ourselves from the mire of collegiate apathy and spark the productive intellectual discourse necessary to effect true change within the immediate collegiate sphere. All work featured in The Spark is displayed by express permission of the author, who holds all relevant copyrights to their work. Work published in The Spark is intended solely for the enrichment of the Whitman academic community in the hope that intellectual discourse will, eventually, incite social change. This special print issue of The Spark was completed in collaboration with the fall 2007 section of Religion 355: Religious Intolerance in the Contemporary U.S. View The Spark in its entirety at: http://www.whitman.edu/spark Contents 04 Letter from the Editor Kim Hooyboer 06 Capitalism and Protestant Dominance Kate Farrington 11 The Discovery Institute and the Center for Science and Culture Kiva Bell Ellenberg 22 Conflicting Jurisprudence in Lyng v. Northwest. A case study in Native American Religious Free Exercise Aaron Rose 34 Representations of Islam in the United States' Presidential Rhetoric, Post-September 11, 2001 Michela Corcorran 46 Creating Identity: The Fragmentation of White Racist Movements in America Teal Greyhavens 57 Separation or Death: One Hundred Years of White Supremacist-Black Nationalist Alliances in America Dana Johnson 67 The theological justifications for 'Christian' racism and why Jesus must be central to combat them Hilary Davis 79 A Recipe for Religious Intolerance Mary Simpson-Stanton [ 2 ] RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN CONTEMPORARY U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pseudogenes Or Pseudoscience? by Casey Luskin an Up-To-Date Look at the Debate Over Introduction “Junk-DNA” and “Sub-Optimal” Design
    The Biannual Volume II Newsletter of: Issue 1 Summer, 2003 Pseudogenes or Pseudoscience? By Casey Luskin An up-to-date look at the debate over Introduction “junk-DNA” and “sub-optimal” design. When determining a feature topic for The Light Bulb, we often banter about what will most benefit readers. Though we may desire to devote newsletter space for writing articles in response to articles criticizing activities of the Center, the best newsletter covers topics of current interest that will serve readers. After a recent article in the eminent scientific journal Nature and articles in various intelligent design and creationist publications, the issue of “pseudogenes” and “junk-DNA” is a hot topic. Importantly, the scientific issues at stake in the debate over “pseudogenes” raise vital theological Figure 1. questions at the core of the intelligent design – evolution debate. First, however, a short biology lesson is in order. Although the biochemistry of life is exceedingly complex, the basic processes by which the information of DNA (see Figure 1 at right) is converted into the biomatter of proteins can be summarized briefly. Contents Genes are a portion of DNA which contain a Science Resources: sequence of nucleotides that code for a protein. A Feature: Pseudogenes or Pseudoscience? Pg. 1 protein is a biomolecule composed of amino acids Origins News Updates Pg. 4 which performs some function in the cell. To make “Quote Qua Quote” Pg. 6 a long and elegant story short, the nucleotide Field Reports: language of DNA is “transcribed” into a similar IDEA Center News and Events Pg. 3 molecule, messenger RNA (mRNA).
    [Show full text]