Kansas looks at redefining science

[Pitt Gorilla]

Whoo-Hoo, Kansas!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution were not limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself.

Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought.

The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.

"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.

State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.

Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.

The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."

Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.

One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." That's close to the current definition.

The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.

The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in 2004.

Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas.

"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."

Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.

"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."

[KCWolfman]

What rule of science is being re-written with Intelligent Design Theory?

[unlurking]

Man, I'm just waiting to see how you "experiment" with the creationism theory.

I can just imagine science classes like that of Hogwarts where all the kids are running around yelling "LET THERE BE LIGHT!!!!!!!!!"

:D

[unlurking]

What rule of science is being re-written with Intelligent Design Theory?
IMO, none.

But then again, I teach my son how to actually PRINT his letters rather than making this chicken scratch that everyone is starting to teach because they think it is easier to learn cursive. Have had several talks with teachers about the new teaching methods going on, especially in math.

Guess I'm just glad I don't have to teach him that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a weak minded attempt to accept things we don't understand rather than studying them.

(Curious to see how many of the ardent religious folks will see Intelligent Design when it is used to teach kids in Utah that aliens seeded our planet.)

[Logical]

I am sorry but WTH kind of scientific standard does not need to know what kind of answer is being sought. That is amazing mumbo jumbo even for the bizarro world of legislators.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought.

[KCWolfman]

I am sorry but WTH kind of scientific standard does not need to know what kind of answer is being sought. That is amazing mumbo jumbo even for the bizarro world of legislators.
Isn't that evolution in a nutshell?

We have evolved from single cells, but we don't know how or why or even what created the single cells nor are we even looking to answer such a question.

[KCWolfman]

IMO, none.

But then again, I teach my son how to actually PRINT his letters rather than making this chicken scratch that everyone is starting to teach because they think it is easier to learn cursive. Have had several talks with teachers about the new teaching methods going on, especially in math.

Guess I'm just glad I don't have to teach him that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a weak minded attempt to accept things we don't understand rather than studying them.

(Curious to see how many of the ardent religious folks will see Intelligent Design when it is used to teach kids in Utah that aliens seeded our planet.)
Intelligent design does not mention a creator or a religion at all. It is the theorem that all life must have generated from a higher power. It is just logical.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 cells to the 99,999,999,999,999,999,999 power just decided randomly to evolve to one of several minute possibilities over the power of infinite possibilities all at the exact rate and time to make human beings the only sentient life known to mankind.

[Chieficus]

The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution were not limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself.[/b]

Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought.

The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.

"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

Those who are scared of a little challenge to their "faith" need to grow up. After all, the idea that science must look only for natural causes is based upon the notion that only logically or emperically falsifiable claims are meaningful. This is no more than the philosophy of logical positivism.

And that base statement of LP is neither logically or emperically falsifiable and contradictory upon itself.

Those who are whining about the proposed definition change above really have no other reason than the fact that it violates the assumptions of their worldview that they hold so dear.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Those who are scared of a little challenge to their "faith" need to grow up. After all, the idea that science must look only for natural causes is based upon the notion that only logically or emperically falsifiable claims are meaningful. This is no more than the philosophy of logical positivism.

And that base statement of LP is neither logically or emperically falsifiable and contradictory upon itself.

Those who are whining about the proposed definition change above really have no other reason than the fact that it violates the assumptions of their worldview that they hold so dear.

That sounds like just the kind of tripe that is being fed to our youth today in public schools. All science is based upon logical cause and effect. Either it logically works or it doesn't. This is how we evolved science from the nutjob alchemists who thought they could create gold in the middle ages to the modern sciences. By the same token, the illogic of certain theses have to also be recognized and taken as illogical nonsense because they make no logical sense and can't be logically proven. It is my belief, my faith, that the creation of mankind and all other life and material in the universe is evidentally logical. Not simply due to the sheer illogic of it happening by wild chance on it's own, but also by the logic and balance of the design of creation.

[the Talking Can]

amazing....the Mullahs will stop at nothing...I say we close all Hospitals and open Intelligent Design Health Centers where every illness and emergency is treated with the phrase "This is God's plan"...how soon before we replace all our teachers with priests, our texts with bibles?

this may episode, may, in fact disprove Darwin...we are getting dumber by the generation...

[KCWolfman]

amazing....the Mullahs will stop at nothing...I say we close all Hospitals and open Intelligent Design Health Centers where every illness and emergency is treated with the phrase "This is God's plan"...how soon before we replace all our teachers with priests, our texts with bibles?

this may episode, may, in fact disprove Darwin...we are getting dumber by the generation...
Again, another misinformed statement regarding Intelligent Design. No surprise from the source however.

Perhaps next you can tell us how Christians are cannibals and bad valleys cause malaria?

[unlurking]

Intelligent design does not mention a creator or a religion at all. It is the theorem that all life must have generated from a higher power. It is just logical.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 cells to the 99,999,999,999,999,999,999 power just decided randomly to evolve to one of several minute possibilities over the power of infinite possibilities all at the exact rate and time to make human beings the only sentient life known to mankind.

Wait a minute here.

Intelligent Design IS a creationist theory. The "God" was removed and replaced with a "higher power" to make it more palatable and seem less religious.

The difference is that now you can "interchange" your higher power with whatever you want, such as aliens, angels/demons, gods, etc. The one thing you CANNOT do is interchange it with a "random" (non-intelligent design) item such as cells being carried to this planet in a dormant state in a meteor or comet for example.

You have now REMOVED science from this theory because you have elminated options based on faith and not study. Pure and simple.

The theory of evolution on the other hand DOES NOT declare how life came to be on this planet, only that it evolved once it got here. Two TOTALLY different concepts. It is the basic concept of survival of the fittest taken to explain how some traits in a species are promoted while others are removed from the genetic line.

These two "theories" are ONLY in conflict at the point "intelligent human" life came to be. One says it was a strong trait that aided in survival, and therefore was promoted in the species. The other says it must ALWAYS have been this way.

Obviously, Intelligent Design is based on "blind faith". Evolution has been based off years of study and research not just on species from our time, but the fossils and remains of species that existed millions of years ago.

And sadly, they don't have to be in conflict in the bible either, unless you believe the only possible translations for parables by human minds is literal.

My mother once explained to me her interpretation of creation in that man cannot know how long a day is to god, without getting closer to him. For all we know, the "Let there be light" event was the Big Bang theory. A trillion years might pass in what may seem a day to god. The apple tree may be a metaphor for a process or event that began with monkeys using tools to make their lives easier or better, thus promoting the thought process. To my mother, these things make sense because no man can know god well enough to rule anything in or out, but only strive to continue to learn about him through the study and understanding of the world he created for us.

Intelligent Design objects to that.

IMO, Intelligent Design is a slap in the face of intelligent religious folks.

[Chieficus]

Wait a minute here.

Intelligent Design IS a creationist theory. The "God" was removed and replaced with a "higher power" to make it more palatable and seem less religious.

The difference is that now you can "interchange" your higher power with whatever you want, such as aliens, angels/demons, gods, etc. The one thing you CANNOT do is interchange it with a "random" (non-intelligent design) item such as cells being carried to this planet in a dormant state in a meteor or comet for example.

You have now REMOVED science from this theory because you have elminated options based on faith and not study. Pure and simple.

The theory of evolution on the other hand DOES NOT declare how life came to be on this planet, only that it evolved once it got here. Two TOTALLY different concepts. It is the basic concept of survival of the fittest taken to explain how some traits in a species are promoted while others are removed from the genetic line.

These two "theories" are ONLY in conflict at the point "intelligent human" life came to be. One says it was a strong trait that aided in survival, and therefore was promoted in the species. The other says it must ALWAYS have been this way.

Obviously, Intelligent Design is based on "blind faith". Evolution has been based off years of study and research not just on species from our time, but the fossils and remains of species that existed millions of years ago.

And sadly, they don't have to be in conflict in the bible either, unless you believe the only possible translations for parables by human minds is literal.

My mother once explained to me her interpretation of creation in that man cannot know how long a day is to god, without getting closer to him. For all we know, the "Let there be light" event was the Big Bang theory. A trillion years might pass in what may seem a day to god. The apple tree may be a metaphor for a process or event that began with monkeys using tools to make their lives easier or better, thus promoting the thought process. To my mother, these things make sense because no man can know god well enough to rule anything in or out, but only strive to continue to learn about him through the study and understanding of the world he created for us.

Intelligent Design objects to that.

IMO, Intelligent Design is a slap in the face of intelligent religious folks.

My gosh, man... you're arguing against a theory you haven't even studied.

From the looks of it you've taken some quotes from the opposition to ID and formed an opinion, and are now trying to pass it off as knowledge.

Before you keep talking, I'd suggest reading some stuff by William Dembski. Yeah, he has a PhD in Philosophy and at Princeton he earned a Master of Divinity, so, of course, some of his stuff is going to have a religious bent... However, given his PhD in Mathematics and post-doctoral work in Math, Physics, and Computer Science, he is not exactly illiterate in dealing with the scientific side of things and he will discuss ID from a purely scientific side of things as well...

[Braincase]

We are a giant Alien petri dish.

[Saulbadguy]

Teach both, and get on with it.

How exactly does gravity work again?

[tiptap]

What rule of science is being re-written with Intelligent Design Theory?

Technically none. We have two parts in science as most disciplines: inductive and deductive. Inductive logic is the investigative part of science. We propose hypothesis and develop tests and obtain observations that support or negate our hypothesis. The deductive understanding is the system that is build up that explains a broad number of observations or experiments and at the same time has a delineated path.
If you mean to hold ID ideas in the early inductive process then I would agree with you. It has been purposed that the complexity we see in nature is so astronomically large that it is impossible to account for this except by forethought and intent. But this requires that we exhaust all other processes before settling upon a supernatural one that must by definition be beyond our ability to ascertain understaning.
I diverge for a minute. Sir Isaac Newton gave us Calculus in order to arrive at method to predict behavior of moving objects. It is important to note that there was no deductive, delineated understanding of Calculus for almost two hundred years. Newton simply invoked the use of flexion (derivative) and fluxon (integral) when ever he needed to make his calculations. It was an emperical discovery "based on the shoulders of giants" who allowed him to put discover the inverse relationship between derivative and integral.
The success of this discovery changed the speed of development in science as ever widening use of notions of Calculus were used in ever wider phyiscal descriptions. But the deductive formulation was not obatined until the use of limit (the bane of Calc I). The 'mystical' properties of Calculus, not understood and yet so successful in describing physical science, led clergy to draw analogies to God's place in the universe and like Calculus, successful as an answer without explanation. God in the gaps.
No one in science thinks our understanding of evolution is complete. And circumstances that gave rise to life are "buried" deep in the past. (ID does not accept young world arguments so the age of the universe and earth is billions of years old for them as well). But there are connections in evidence from the past to the present.
I would simply ask that ID science be moved through the process of peer review and trial before being offered as the best explantion for a wide numbe of circumstances. And it certainly falls short in comparison to evolution in guidance in delivering human understanding for the processes of life. Teaching ID as a well established scientific explanation to high school students does so without it having established such claim to those whose expertice in the field should render their judgement more knowledgeable.
I think it is sort of lazy science if you don't look for explanations and simply evoke "creation." It is a fear of letting the process play out.
It is an important question. If you believe that God needs only your devotions to bless America than I can see why it is important to defend that idea. But if you believe that progress in the West has been build upon science and technology then you would equally want to sustain that activity. We know that 80% of the population believes in God. Are we now ready to loose traction with process in science by insisting upon ID be taught diluting time and effort for the paradigm that informs us in biology?

[homey]

Next thing you know kids will be doing research on the INTERNET!!!

[Logical]

Isn't that evolution in a nutshell?

We have evolved from single cells, but we don't know how or why or even what created the single cells nor are we even looking to answer such a question.No. While I will admit that science does not try to investigate for all the answers simultaneously. I do not think you can call anything science that is not attempting understand why a circumstance exists. I have no problem mixing creationism (given a rationale timeline and not just a week, it is a parable folks) with evolution, in fact it seems logical. But to just change the rules of scientific investigation to get legislation passed is just not right.

[vailpass]

This is why I send my son to private school. While some adults in Kansas are selfishly pushing their religious agenda (don't be coy and tell me ID is not a codeword for creationism) their children will be the ones who suffer.
When an ID taught kid goes up against a kid trained in empirical science the ID kid will get crushed every time. The real world does not suffer fools gladly. Pure science, that which can be studied, measured, manipulated, recorded, prove or disproven, drives much of our world.
I pity the children who will come up in this doctrine of voodoo science. We really don't need this right now; America is already falling behind the rest of the world in this discipline.

[DanT]

I'm not sure what "systematic method of continuing investigation" is supposed to mean. I can tell you a standard that characterizes scientific theories and helps distinguish them from pseudo-scientific ones. A scientific theory allows one to make bold predictions that are potentially falsifiable via experiment or observation. Scientific theories aren't content just to gather any evidence that supports them. Instead, they produce predictions that can stand up to tough tests. If no conceivable experimental result or empirical observation would be taken as disproof of the theory's prediction, then the theory isn't scientific.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Falsifiability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Logical]

I'm not sure what "systematic method of continuing investigation" is supposed to mean. I can tell you a standard that characterizes scientific theories and helps distinguish them from pseudo-scientific ones. A scientific theory allows one to make bold predictions that are potentially falsifiable via experiment or observation. Scientific theories aren't content just to gather any evidence that supports them. Instead, they produce predictions that can stand up to tough tests. If no conceivable experimental result or empirical observation would be taken as disproof of the theory's prediction, then the theory isn't scientific.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Falsifiability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I don't think I have quite ever heard that explanation before. Thank goodness. Is it just me or was that fairly confusing?

[Laz]

i must say hanging around ChiefsPlanet has sure broaden my horizons.


i have always thought that all the stories you hear about rightwing extremists were just fairy tales to scare small children.



now you actually hear them speak ... "holy monkey poop, batman!!" :eek: :eek:







,

[Logical]

I don't think I have quite ever heard that explanation before. Thank goodness. Is it just me or was that fairly confusing?

Just for clarifcation it is the contrast between these two sentences that I find disconcerting.

Instead, they produce predictions that can stand up to tough tests. If no conceivable experimental result or empirical observation would be taken as disproof of the theory's prediction, then the theory isn't scientific.

[DanT]

I don't think I have quite ever heard that explanation before. Thank goodness. Is it just me or was that fairly confusing?

It's simpler to understand when you consider some of the pseudo-sciences that Karl Popper used as examples, like Marxism and Freudianism. According to Popper, a Freudian would say that the generosity of the adult Alice was a result of her toilet training and then turn around and say that the stinginess of the adult Betty was a result of her toilet training. Every result was considered confirmation of the theory, so it's not scientific.

On the other hand, when Einstein said that matter and energy are equivalent, that implied that gravity ought to act on light waves the same as it acts on matter, so if light went past a large body there should be a slight deflection as a result of gravity due to energy that wouldn't have been predicted by the Newtonian theory based on matter alone. That's a bold prediction and, because an eclipse was coming up, it was possible to subject it to a test. So measurements of the eclipsed light were gathered by the astronomer Eddington to see whether the results showed
A) More deflection that that predicted by Newton
or
B) No more deflection.

A, in fact, happened, but the point is that B could have happened. That is, it is conceivable that a result could have been observed that indicated that "B" happened and not "A".

[DanT]

Here's an except on Eddington's famous 1919 experiment, from the Widipedia article on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

After the war, Eddington travelled to the island of Principe near Africa to watch the solar eclipse of May 29, 1919. During the eclipse, he took pictures of the stars in the region around the Sun. According to the general theory of relativity, stars near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during an eclipse, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the stars. Newtonian gravitation predicted half the shift of general relativity. The expedition was to help discriminate between the two theories. This relativistic shift was indeed found, and was a major science story around the world. It is also the source of the urban rumor that only three people understand relativity; when asked by a reporter who suggested this, he jokingly replied "Oh, who's the third?"

[Logical]

It's simpler to understand when you consider some of the pseudo-sciences that Karl Popper used as examples, like Marxism and Freudianism. According to Popper, a Freudian would say that the generosity of the adult Alice was a result of her toilet training and then turn around and say that the stinginess of the adult Betty was a result of her toilet training. Every result was considered confirmation of the theory, so it's not scientific.

On the other hand, when Einstein said that matter and energy are equivalent, that implied that gravity ought to act on light waves the same as it acts on matter, so if light went past a large body there should be a slight deflection as a result of gravity. That's a bold prediction and, because an eclipse was coming up, it was possible to subject it to a test. So measurements of the eclipsed light were gathered by the astronomer Eddington to see whether the results showed
A) Deflection
or
B) No deflection.

A, in fact, happened, but the point is that B could have happened. That is, it is conceivable that a result could have been observed that indicated that "No deflection" happened.

Maybe it is me, or maybe it is just too fine a distinction I am trying to make. But those sound like the definitions of hypothesis, more than theories. Help me out Dan.

[skye22f]

My gosh, man... you're arguing against a theory you haven't even studied.

It's not a theory because it doesn't make falsifiable predictions.

Try and think of some way that you could falsify ID. It's not falsifiable. Hence, not a theory.

Before you keep talking, I'd suggest reading some stuff by William Dembski. Yeah, he has a PhD in Philosophy and at Princeton he earned a Master of Divinity, so, of course, some of his stuff is going to have a religious bent... However, given his PhD in Mathematics and post-doctoral work in Math, Physics, and Computer Science, he is not exactly illiterate in dealing with the scientific side of things and he will discuss ID from a purely scientific side of things as well...

Evolution is Biology. Not Math, not Physics, not CS. Dembski's "work" relies upon a fallacious strawman of evolution. Refutations are available all over the internet.

[DanT]

Maybe it is me, or maybe it is just too fine a distinction I am trying to make. But those sound like the definitions of hypothesis, more than theories. Help me out Dan.

The theory has to be capable of producing falsifiable hypotheses. The bolder the hypotheses the better. A bold prediction is like a bet on an eagerly anticipated boxing match. It puts its money on one side. It understands that there is an outcome that would mean it would lose the bet.

Pseudo-science never puts its money where its mouth is. It never subjects its hypotheses to a test in which a measurable result could occur that would disprove it. By could occur, I mean could in the sense that the Royals could win the World Series this year. I don't mean that it will occur; I mean that we have measurement equipment in place that would allow us to know whether the Royals did or did not end up winning the 2005 World Series.

[Logical]

The theory has to be capable of producing falsifiable hypotheses. The bolder the hypotheses the better. A bold prediction is like a bet on an eagerly anticipated boxing match. It puts its money on one side. It understands that there is an outcome that would mean it would lose the bet.

Pseudo-science never puts its money where its mouth is. It never subjects its hypotheses to a test in which a measurable result could occur that would disprove it. By could occur, I mean could in the sense that the Royals could win the World Series this year. I don't mean that it will occur; I mean that we have measurement equipment in place that would allow us to know whether the Royals did or did not end up winning the 2005 World Series.

Perfect explanation. thanks Dan. :thumb:

[Logical]

...

Evolution is Biology. Not Math, not Physics, not CS. Dembski's "work" relies upon a fallacious strawman of evolution. Refutations are available all over the internet.

Basically I agree with you, but it would be hard to argue Physics as a science is not a part of evolution. Beings have to adapt to their physical environment. If gravity were reduced by half as an example, it would change our evolutionary course.

[Adept Havelock]

This is quite simple.

The ID lobby has tendered the hypothesis that "The Universe was Designed".

Now, in accordance with the Scientific Method, let them accumulate at least as significant a body of peer-reviewed scientific work as evolution has. Perhaps then it can be taught in a science class, untill then, leave ID where it belongs, in religion and philosophy classes.

BTW, Darwins Black Box is an interesting read, but as it relies upon Post Hoc, Ergo Proctor Hoc reasoning, it is not considered to be in accordance with the scientific method.

[Nightfyre]

That sounds like just the kind of tripe that is being fed to our youth today in public schools. All science is based upon logical cause and effect. Either it logically works or it doesn't. This is how we evolved science from the nutjob alchemists who thought they could create gold in the middle ages to the modern sciences. By the same token, the illogic of certain theses have to also be recognized and taken as illogical nonsense because they make no logical sense and can't be logically proven. It is my belief, my faith, that the creation of mankind and all other life and material in the universe is evidentally logical. Not simply due to the sheer illogic of it happening by wild chance on it's own, but also by the logic and balance of the design of creation.
Can you say fundamentalist?

[Nightfyre]

Those who are scared of a little challenge to their "faith" need to grow up. After all, the idea that science must look only for natural causes is based upon the notion that only logically or emperically falsifiable claims are meaningful. This is no more than the philosophy of logical positivism.

And that base statement of LP is neither logically or emperically falsifiable and contradictory upon itself.

Those who are whining about the proposed definition change above really have no other reason than the fact that it violates the assumptions of their worldview that they hold so dear.
Or what observation has taught us... :shrug:

[skye22f]

The theory has to be capable of producing falsifiable hypotheses. The bolder the hypotheses the better. A bold prediction is like a bet on an eagerly anticipated boxing match. It puts its money on one side. It understands that there is an outcome that would mean it would lose the bet.

Pseudo-science never puts its money where its mouth is. It never subjects its hypotheses to a test in which a measurable result could occur that would disprove it. By could occur, I mean could in the sense that the Royals could win the World Series this year. I don't mean that it will occur; I mean that we have measurement equipment in place that would allow us to know whether the Royals did or did not end up winning the 2005 World Series.

That is such a good explanation. Damn. Seriously. You are the Carl Sagan of ChiefsPlanet. Excellent excellent excellent.

that

[the Talking Can]

The theory has to be capable of producing falsifiable hypotheses. The bolder the hypotheses the better. A bold prediction is like a bet on an eagerly anticipated boxing match. It puts its money on one side. It understands that there is an outcome that would mean it would lose the bet.

Pseudo-science never puts its money where its mouth is. It never subjects its hypotheses to a test in which a measurable result could occur that would disprove it. By could occur, I mean could in the sense that the Royals could win the World Series this year. I don't mean that it will occur; I mean that we have measurement equipment in place that would allow us to know whether the Royals did or did not end up winning the 2005 World Series.

thank god for intelligence....too bad you're not on the State Board of Education, where there is no intelligence to be found.....

[Logical]

That is such a good explanation. Damn. Seriously. You are the Carl Sagan of ChiefsPlanet. Excellent excellent excellent.

that

Let me just say that no matter what side DanT is on if he brings forth facts to support a position (and he is not afraid to go against his opinion) you can take it to the bank that those facts are top notch.:thumb:

[Pitt Gorilla]

The theory has to be capable of producing falsifiable hypotheses. The bolder the hypotheses the better. A bold prediction is like a bet on an eagerly anticipated boxing match. It puts its money on one side. It understands that there is an outcome that would mean it would lose the bet.

Pseudo-science never puts its money where its mouth is. It never subjects its hypotheses to a test in which a measurable result could occur that would disprove it. By could occur, I mean could in the sense that the Royals could win the World Series this year. I don't mean that it will occur; I mean that we have measurement equipment in place that would allow us to know whether the Royals did or did not end up winning the 2005 World Series.Too logical; next...