8 ms·

Bill would ban the teaching of scientific theories in Montana schools

53 points by themitigating 4y ago

version_five 4y ago
I don't agree with this but I understand the intent. "Science" has a special status, and that has been abused to push religious belief ("science tells us"). So science is getting the same pushback as teaching religion as fact in a school would. It's not good, but it's a progression in a kind of arms race
- RajT88 4y ago
  > "Science" has a special status, and that has been abused to push religious belief ("science tells us"). This is less the fault of scientists and more the fault of science writers in the media. This should not be a part of the debate when it comes to public policy like this. What he's saying: > The legislation’s sponsor says by banning scientific theories, the policy aims to prevent kids from being taught things that aren’t true. Is a talking point from the Creationist playbook. I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and biology was the only impacted curriculum. It of course is based on the (intentional) misunderstanding of what is meant in casual English as a "Theory" (i.e. an unproven hypothesis) versus what is referred to in scientific lingo as a "Theory" (i.e. the accepted model of how things work, because it makes excellent predictions). These people need to have this explained to them in a public forum, and forced to explain why they insist on pushing an incorrect view of the issue.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > These people need to have this explained to them in a public forum, and forced to explain why they insist on pushing an incorrect view of the issue. In this country, you can't force a politician to explain anything. He probably knows he's full of shit, but he's tied his traincar to winning the culture war.
    - RajT88 4y ago
      Public challenges used to shame them enough to change their ways. These days, seems like they have no shame. Double down, repeat the BS. Shout louder than your opposition.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  Based upon the statement of one of the sponsors, the intent seems to be to not allow the teaching of very well supported scientific theories that fly in the face of religion.
  - NateEag 4y ago
    > fly in the face of religion s/religion/a particular interpretation of the first few pages of Genesis/
- jasonjayr 4y ago
  Science is testing theories + examining data. That's it. It's a process. Yes, people can 'creativly' interpret data, and put their biases into it. But the cure for that is ..... more science. More research. More testing, more theories. Form concensus. Critically evaluate outliers or non-mainstream results or ideas, don't just dismiss it. Don't let folks dismiss science + research becuase they don't agree with it, or it's politically or religiously inconvinent. Teach the process, and ask them to defend their position with provable data.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- melagonster 4y ago
  but onw side have no evidence. exactly, we should stop mentioning both in one sentence.
blueyes 4y ago
Grew up in Montana, now living in the Bay. Stories like this are a good reminder of the excesses perpetrated in our red hinterlands. The dog whistle in Emrich's statement is how he talks about scientific facts and theories. He's aiming for Darwin and he's got a little Intelligent Design in his back pocket. These guys are nut jobs scoring points by attacking science class. And I'm not saying "trust science" here. I'm saying science is theory upon theory, and the best ones have a lot of support in fact. Emrich lacks the brains to grok that, or at least he pretends to.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Nationally the "trust God" guys were kicking around a decade or two before the "believe Science" folks took hold. It's weird to see them coexisting together at the same time.
  - vonnik 4y ago
    Co-existing is doing a lot of work there.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Blue states have their own issues though: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-california-2-2-4-may-be-thought-racist-11621876555 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-california-2-2-4-may-be-thou... https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858?mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/democrats-blue-states-legislation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/democrats-blue-st... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
  - syspec 4y ago
    [flagged]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hedora 4y ago
Meanwhile, California simply defunds science education…
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- doug_durham 4y ago
  Citations please?
philip1209 4y ago
Wave bye to cells, gravity, and germs
jimjimjim 4y ago
there seem to be more and more regression errors these days
WalterBright 4y ago
I'd like to see the schools teach something about how free markets work. After all, we live in a free market society. They should also teach basic accounting. (It really isn't hard, it's not much more than adding and subtracting. People really ought to know the difference between "profit" and "revenue", as they are often conflated.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nsajko 4y ago
  > about how free markets work. After all, we live in a free market society. Teaching about free markets is like teaching about spherical cows. But this isn't really on-topic.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Teaching about free markets is like teaching about spherical cows. Thanks for illustrating my point that people in American classrooms should be taught about it.
    - andybak 4y ago
      The post you're replying to seemed reasonable to me. A "free market" is a simplified model used to model messy reality. What exactly are you mocking?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Newtonian Mechanics is also a simplified model. Does that mean it is as useless as spherical cows? More to the point, in my experience the people who say free markets are some crazy extremist unworkable ideology tend to have very strange ideas about what it is. For a typical example, they'll claim a free market requires "perfect information", which is completely false. (Imperfect information is called "risk" and is factored into prices.)
phlipski 4y ago
When did Montana become the Mississippi of the north?
COGlory 4y ago
Anyone taking this at face value is misinterpreting the current Montana political situation. There's a Republican majority in both houses and also the governor and most of the executive positions are red as well. In all likelihood, this won't pass, and was never designed to pass. What is happening is that the Montana University System Board of Regents serve a 7 year term. The previous governor had two terms in office, and so he appointed the entire board of regents. He was "purple" in so far that "purple" means he lied to the populace to try and pretend he wasn't as left leaning as he actually is. One place this lie wore thin was with the MUS Board of Regents, which are not revocable and wield near-absolute power in the University system, as defined by the Montana constitution. His regent picks were as hard left as possible. In addition to that, Bozeman and Missoula, the homes of the two major campuses in the state, have attracted a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans, drastically driving up the cost of living, meaning both U of M and MSU have astronomical cost of attendance, despite being subsidized state schools. The end result of all this is that the current political climate is that Missoula and Bozeman are not at all representative of the rest of the state, as evidenced by the overwhelming Republican victories in the last couple elections, but the newly elected state legislature and governor are unable to change the University policies quickly enough for their liking. There are currently multiple thrusts in the state legislature to reign in the universities, with challenges over guns on campus, challenges against the public union (mostly made up by teachers and graduate students) and challenges over budget. All of these are designed simply to wield power over the Board. By my estimation, the MUS Board of Regents are effectively unelected tyrants who are doing the state a great disservice. And their behavior begets crap like this. (Which is also stupid and awful). These are the types of stupid games we get to play when there's no direct accountability. Anyways, until the Board of Regents is more in-touch with the average Montanan (who are not from Missoula or Bozeman) and trying to solve problems relevant to Montana, this unfortunate lose-lose war will continue.
- dd36 4y ago
  What’s an example of something tyrannical they’ve done such that science is now a target?
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
glonq 4y ago
Thankfully there's plenty of scholarships and jobs for the kids who grow up in better states.
chx 4y ago
The report was not clear so I read the actual bill. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf This is the crux of the matter: > a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction. And once he defined this > . Requirements for science instruction in schools. (1) Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact. First, he gets words wrong, in science theory means "a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses" -- source: https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-science https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-scie... As for "scientific fact", there's simply no such thing. Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-in-facts/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-sc... Complete hogwash.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Reconcile "brings together many facts" and "no such thing as scientific fact".
  - chx 4y ago
    If I release an object it drops to the floor. This is fact. But this is not a scientific fact.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I read your cite. I don't think it showed there's much of a difference beyond "I said so".
      - vidanay 4y ago
        Fact: The plate hit the floor and broke. Theory: The plate will always hit the floor and break. Conditions: On Earth.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
It doesn't really seem to do that, it just creates its own definition of "scientific theory" and bans that. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf The key part is this: "WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction." So, Newton's Laws would seem to be okay to teach because it's observable and repeatable despite being superseded by more complete theories. And in the other direction, creationism would not be okay to teach despite not being falsifiable. This actually seems pretty reasonable in spirit to me. The real mistake is ironically trying to define scientific theory and scientific fact. Sure there might be edge cases where extremists or politically motivated people on all sides would be unhappy they can't push their pet ideas, the body of well proven science is so vast that there is no shortage of useful material to teach students under those definitions.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Going beyond Newton's laws is an advanced topic even for college. Newton's laws are also accurate for terrestrial uses, it's just when you get into astronomical things with massive distances and gravities that things are different. Starting out teaching celestial mechanics to kids is never going to work.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    Yeah that's my point, that this definition would not prevent useful and theories like Newton's Law or evolution from being taught to highschoolers. By the time you get to reasonable (non-crackpot) scientific theories to teach that do not fall into repeatable and observable definitions (e.g., string theory), you're far beyond high school. It's not like they'll be missing out on vital science education because they're not being taught those theories. And there doesn't seem to be anything against teaching the scientific method or the the existence of superseded, unproven, disproven, etc., theories. I'm not saying anything about the motives, politicking, or wording in the bill, and I'm no expert in how the legal system could interpret it. Just saying, from a layperson's reading and assuming good faith (which is obviously never a good idea when dealing with a politician), it doesn't look like a horrible bill. And I am inviting people who know more about law or the local courts and politics etc to shoot down those assumptions, I wasn't trying to state it as a fact of how the law would play out if passed, although my comment might have been a little strong in giving that impression.
roughly 4y ago
This is one of the dumber things I've read, but - one of the effects of the internet in its current incarnation is that "state senator in Montana says something stupid/introduces a stupid bill" lands in our inbox as though it matters. It does not. Unless you live in Montana and can vote State Senator Dipshit here out of office, this isn't relevant to you. It's not a broader sign about the current state of the whatever. There's an idiot in Montana who wrote something stupid down, just like some idiot did in Alabama the week before and Portland the week before that. I'm spending too much time writing about it, you're spending too much time reading about it, and that little adrenal spike you got when you read the title was already more impact than this should have had on you.
- teawrecks 4y ago
  > It's not a broader sign about the current state of the whatever. "I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance." - Carl Sagan Texas does shit like this all the time, as do other southern states, and the local govt of any person reading this might be next. This is absolutely representative of a pattern of the celebration of ignorance in the US. The only thing left to do is acknowledge it and do something about it.
  - roughly 4y ago
    Even before Carl Sagan's day, you could find some idiot saying idiot things somewhere, if you looked hard enough. You could even find an idiot with a lofty title - somewhere in local government, or maybe middle management at a reasonably-sized company - saying idiot things. This idiot didn't even get a bill passed - he just submitted one. From the look of things, his district's got about 7000 people in it, and being modern America, there's probably a ~couple percent swing in either direction at play in any election, so this idiot managed to convince maybe a couple hundred other people in Montana that he was the best option - and who knows, the other guy might've been an even bigger idiot. I agree, there are troubling trends in the country, and I agree that those trends require action. But this idiot isn't a trend, he's an idiot, and no matter how much action we take and how much success we have, there'll always be another idiot out there, proudly crowing their idiocy. My point is that spending any time at all letting your dander get up because an idiot said an idiot thing is wasting time and energy you could better use on other things. More broadly stated - I get my dander up when the house and senate pass a bill that the president signs. I get my dander up when the state of Texas bans abortions, and the Supreme court upholds it. I get my dander up when the Alameda County Sheriff blows a $300M budget and still neglects inmates to death. But I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my dander on some jackass state senator grandstanding in rural Montana. I've got better things to spend my time on, and so do you.
klyrs 4y ago
> WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction Earthquake in Turkiye and Sudan this week: observable, not repeatable. I claim that the earthquake did happen. Is that fact or theory?
keithnz 4y ago
not being american.... why don't you guys have national standards for things like education?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > national standards We don't like central planning.
- jasonfarnon 4y ago
  federalism? more practically, because there's a greater diversity of values?
- codingdave 4y ago
  We do, but states can over-ride them with their own choices. There are many layers of government in the USA - Federal, State, County, City, and sometimes even more granular. There are also school districts which have their own policies, and that doesn't even get into all the small government entities that even Americans don't think about much like library systems, utilities, water districts, etc. Between all that, one layer of government having standards is not always as meaningful or decisive as one might think.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  I'm not defending it -- but it's because it's a federal government, not a centralized government. One of the key tenets is therefore that governing is left to the states if there isn't a compelling reason that it needs to be done at a national level. Things like national defense and regulating interstate commerce can only be done nationally, so they are. But education is actually one of the classic examples in a federal system where it's hard to argue a compelling reason for nationalization. To the contrary, it's argued that if states are free to experiment then they can come up with better education standards and copy each other organically. But they can also tailor education to meet their local cultural values and history. Of course, more and more things have become "nationalized" over the past century just because it's more efficient and less complicated. But wow do people argue about it.
- offlinenative 4y ago
efitz 4y ago
This article appears very partisan and I really can’t discern what is actually going on from it. At face value it seems to be a misunderstanding by a legislator of the difference between the lay definition of the word “theory” and the usage of that word in scientific contexts. More likely, there is some behind the scenes fight going on and a silly sounding law is being proposed to fight it. However the article is stuck in the trope that Republicans are all theocratic bumpkins that despise knowledge; I can’t take that seriously as characterizing your political opponents as evil or stupid is the oldest form of propaganda.
- polemic 4y ago
  The article states facts. It doesn't call anyone evil, or stupid. But at face value, outlawing the teaching of well established scientific theory in science class is exactly the sort of thing you'd do if you were a theocratic bumpkin who despised knowledge.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > However the article is stuck in the trope that Republicans are all theocratic bumpkins that despise knowledge; I can’t take that seriously as characterizing your political opponents as evil or stupid is the oldest form of propaganda. If the shoe fits /s But seriously, trying to restrict education is what republicans are trying to do. There’s no way around that. They’re limiting what can be taught for some sort of political gain. Not every republican voter is a bumpkin of course, but a large chunk of republican state legislators are fighting very public battles to rewrite textbooks. Some of which have a religious bent, implicitly or explicitly. At face value, yes looks a misunderstanding over the word “theory”. But is it, or is it using this vague definition to disrupt science? Why was this bill introduced at all, that’s the real question. Does the senator think that students should spend more time in science learning about gravity instead of magic… or perhaps less time on “the theory of evolution”. The bills sponsor explicitly is anti-vaccine and pro-Christian-education, and has said that more of “religious facts” should be taught in school. So I would guess this was not an honest mistake to force schools to teach “real facts” instead… but to exploit scientific nomenclature of “theories” to interrupt honest and accurate education.
- 4y ago
nixpulvis 4y ago
Parents should be focused on helping their children navigate facts and theories they disagree with, not sheltering them from their existence. This applies equally regardless of the theory you agree or disagree with. You think evolution is a hoax? Fine, so teach your own damn kids how to pass the class taught by heathens. You think signing the national anthem before class is cringy? Fine, so make fun of it at home and record parody videos. My point is, not everyone is going to agree about everything, but I wish we all had a bit more practice getting along. This idea that we can cleanly separate a theory from a fact and only teach students absolute truth is dangerous and goes against the critical thinking skills we all need to progress and learn.
DueDilligence 4y ago
.. more socio/psychopaths with too much power in places where they don't need to be.
Slava_Propanei 4y ago
[dead]

53 points by themitigating 4y ago

I don't agree with this but I understand the intent. "Science" has a special status, and that has been abused to push religious belief ("science tells us"). So science is getting the same pushback as teaching religion as fact in a school would. It's not good, but it's a progression in a kind of arms race

RajT88 4y ago
> "Science" has a special status, and that has been abused to push religious belief ("science tells us"). This is less the fault of scientists and more the fault of science writers in the media. This should not be a part of the debate when it comes to public policy like this. What he's saying: > The legislation’s sponsor says by banning scientific theories, the policy aims to prevent kids from being taught things that aren’t true. Is a talking point from the Creationist playbook. I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and biology was the only impacted curriculum. It of course is based on the (intentional) misunderstanding of what is meant in casual English as a "Theory" (i.e. an unproven hypothesis) versus what is referred to in scientific lingo as a "Theory" (i.e. the accepted model of how things work, because it makes excellent predictions). These people need to have this explained to them in a public forum, and forced to explain why they insist on pushing an incorrect view of the issue.
- vkou 4y ago
  > These people need to have this explained to them in a public forum, and forced to explain why they insist on pushing an incorrect view of the issue. In this country, you can't force a politician to explain anything. He probably knows he's full of shit, but he's tied his traincar to winning the culture war.
  - RajT88 4y ago
    Public challenges used to shame them enough to change their ways. These days, seems like they have no shame. Double down, repeat the BS. Shout louder than your opposition.
bcrosby95 4y ago
Based upon the statement of one of the sponsors, the intent seems to be to not allow the teaching of very well supported scientific theories that fly in the face of religion.
- NateEag 4y ago
  > fly in the face of religion s/religion/a particular interpretation of the first few pages of Genesis/
jasonjayr 4y ago
Science is testing theories + examining data. That's it. It's a process. Yes, people can 'creativly' interpret data, and put their biases into it. But the cure for that is ..... more science. More research. More testing, more theories. Form concensus. Critically evaluate outliers or non-mainstream results or ideas, don't just dismiss it. Don't let folks dismiss science + research becuase they don't agree with it, or it's politically or religiously inconvinent. Teach the process, and ask them to defend their position with provable data.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
melagonster 4y ago
but onw side have no evidence. exactly, we should stop mentioning both in one sentence.

blueyes 4y ago

Grew up in Montana, now living in the Bay. Stories like this are a good reminder of the excesses perpetrated in our red hinterlands. The dog whistle in Emrich's statement is how he talks about scientific facts and theories. He's aiming for Darwin and he's got a little Intelligent Design in his back pocket. These guys are nut jobs scoring points by attacking science class. And I'm not saying "trust science" here. I'm saying science is theory upon theory, and the best ones have a lot of support in fact. Emrich lacks the brains to grok that, or at least he pretends to.

willcipriano 4y ago
Nationally the "trust God" guys were kicking around a decade or two before the "believe Science" folks took hold. It's weird to see them coexisting together at the same time.
- vonnik 4y ago
  Co-existing is doing a lot of work there.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
Blue states have their own issues though: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-california-2-2-4-may-be-thought-racist-11621876555 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-california-2-2-4-may-be-thou... https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858?mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/democrats-blue-states-legislation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/democrats-blue-st... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
- syspec 4y ago
  [flagged]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hedora 4y ago

Meanwhile, California simply defunds science education…

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
doug_durham 4y ago
Citations please?

philip1209 4y ago

Wave bye to cells, gravity, and germs

jimjimjim 4y ago

there seem to be more and more regression errors these days

WalterBright 4y ago

I'd like to see the schools teach something about how free markets work. After all, we live in a free market society. They should also teach basic accounting. (It really isn't hard, it's not much more than adding and subtracting. People really ought to know the difference between "profit" and "revenue", as they are often conflated.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nsajko 4y ago
> about how free markets work. After all, we live in a free market society. Teaching about free markets is like teaching about spherical cows. But this isn't really on-topic.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > Teaching about free markets is like teaching about spherical cows. Thanks for illustrating my point that people in American classrooms should be taught about it.
  - andybak 4y ago
    The post you're replying to seemed reasonable to me. A "free market" is a simplified model used to model messy reality. What exactly are you mocking?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Newtonian Mechanics is also a simplified model. Does that mean it is as useless as spherical cows? More to the point, in my experience the people who say free markets are some crazy extremist unworkable ideology tend to have very strange ideas about what it is. For a typical example, they'll claim a free market requires "perfect information", which is completely false. (Imperfect information is called "risk" and is factored into prices.)

phlipski 4y ago

When did Montana become the Mississippi of the north?

COGlory 4y ago

Anyone taking this at face value is misinterpreting the current Montana political situation. There's a Republican majority in both houses and also the governor and most of the executive positions are red as well. In all likelihood, this won't pass, and was never designed to pass. What is happening is that the Montana University System Board of Regents serve a 7 year term. The previous governor had two terms in office, and so he appointed the entire board of regents. He was "purple" in so far that "purple" means he lied to the populace to try and pretend he wasn't as left leaning as he actually is. One place this lie wore thin was with the MUS Board of Regents, which are not revocable and wield near-absolute power in the University system, as defined by the Montana constitution. His regent picks were as hard left as possible. In addition to that, Bozeman and Missoula, the homes of the two major campuses in the state, have attracted a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans, drastically driving up the cost of living, meaning both U of M and MSU have astronomical cost of attendance, despite being subsidized state schools. The end result of all this is that the current political climate is that Missoula and Bozeman are not at all representative of the rest of the state, as evidenced by the overwhelming Republican victories in the last couple elections, but the newly elected state legislature and governor are unable to change the University policies quickly enough for their liking. There are currently multiple thrusts in the state legislature to reign in the universities, with challenges over guns on campus, challenges against the public union (mostly made up by teachers and graduate students) and challenges over budget. All of these are designed simply to wield power over the Board. By my estimation, the MUS Board of Regents are effectively unelected tyrants who are doing the state a great disservice. And their behavior begets crap like this. (Which is also stupid and awful). These are the types of stupid games we get to play when there's no direct accountability. Anyways, until the Board of Regents is more in-touch with the average Montanan (who are not from Missoula or Bozeman) and trying to solve problems relevant to Montana, this unfortunate lose-lose war will continue.

dd36 4y ago
What’s an example of something tyrannical they’ve done such that science is now a target?
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

glonq 4y ago

Thankfully there's plenty of scholarships and jobs for the kids who grow up in better states.

chx 4y ago

The report was not clear so I read the actual bill. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf This is the crux of the matter: > a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction. And once he defined this > . Requirements for science instruction in schools. (1) Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact. First, he gets words wrong, in science theory means "a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses" -- source: https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-science https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-scie... As for "scientific fact", there's simply no such thing. Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-in-facts/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-sc... Complete hogwash.

WalterBright 4y ago
Reconcile "brings together many facts" and "no such thing as scientific fact".
- chx 4y ago
  If I release an object it drops to the floor. This is fact. But this is not a scientific fact.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I read your cite. I don't think it showed there's much of a difference beyond "I said so".
    - vidanay 4y ago
      Fact: The plate hit the floor and broke. Theory: The plate will always hit the floor and break. Conditions: On Earth.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

It doesn't really seem to do that, it just creates its own definition of "scientific theory" and bans that. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf The key part is this: "WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction." So, Newton's Laws would seem to be okay to teach because it's observable and repeatable despite being superseded by more complete theories. And in the other direction, creationism would not be okay to teach despite not being falsifiable. This actually seems pretty reasonable in spirit to me. The real mistake is ironically trying to define scientific theory and scientific fact. Sure there might be edge cases where extremists or politically motivated people on all sides would be unhappy they can't push their pet ideas, the body of well proven science is so vast that there is no shortage of useful material to teach students under those definitions.

WalterBright 4y ago
Going beyond Newton's laws is an advanced topic even for college. Newton's laws are also accurate for terrestrial uses, it's just when you get into astronomical things with massive distances and gravities that things are different. Starting out teaching celestial mechanics to kids is never going to work.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Yeah that's my point, that this definition would not prevent useful and theories like Newton's Law or evolution from being taught to highschoolers. By the time you get to reasonable (non-crackpot) scientific theories to teach that do not fall into repeatable and observable definitions (e.g., string theory), you're far beyond high school. It's not like they'll be missing out on vital science education because they're not being taught those theories. And there doesn't seem to be anything against teaching the scientific method or the the existence of superseded, unproven, disproven, etc., theories. I'm not saying anything about the motives, politicking, or wording in the bill, and I'm no expert in how the legal system could interpret it. Just saying, from a layperson's reading and assuming good faith (which is obviously never a good idea when dealing with a politician), it doesn't look like a horrible bill. And I am inviting people who know more about law or the local courts and politics etc to shoot down those assumptions, I wasn't trying to state it as a fact of how the law would play out if passed, although my comment might have been a little strong in giving that impression.

roughly 4y ago

This is one of the dumber things I've read, but - one of the effects of the internet in its current incarnation is that "state senator in Montana says something stupid/introduces a stupid bill" lands in our inbox as though it matters. It does not. Unless you live in Montana and can vote State Senator Dipshit here out of office, this isn't relevant to you. It's not a broader sign about the current state of the whatever. There's an idiot in Montana who wrote something stupid down, just like some idiot did in Alabama the week before and Portland the week before that. I'm spending too much time writing about it, you're spending too much time reading about it, and that little adrenal spike you got when you read the title was already more impact than this should have had on you.

teawrecks 4y ago
> It's not a broader sign about the current state of the whatever. "I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance." - Carl Sagan Texas does shit like this all the time, as do other southern states, and the local govt of any person reading this might be next. This is absolutely representative of a pattern of the celebration of ignorance in the US. The only thing left to do is acknowledge it and do something about it.
- roughly 4y ago
  Even before Carl Sagan's day, you could find some idiot saying idiot things somewhere, if you looked hard enough. You could even find an idiot with a lofty title - somewhere in local government, or maybe middle management at a reasonably-sized company - saying idiot things. This idiot didn't even get a bill passed - he just submitted one. From the look of things, his district's got about 7000 people in it, and being modern America, there's probably a ~couple percent swing in either direction at play in any election, so this idiot managed to convince maybe a couple hundred other people in Montana that he was the best option - and who knows, the other guy might've been an even bigger idiot. I agree, there are troubling trends in the country, and I agree that those trends require action. But this idiot isn't a trend, he's an idiot, and no matter how much action we take and how much success we have, there'll always be another idiot out there, proudly crowing their idiocy. My point is that spending any time at all letting your dander get up because an idiot said an idiot thing is wasting time and energy you could better use on other things. More broadly stated - I get my dander up when the house and senate pass a bill that the president signs. I get my dander up when the state of Texas bans abortions, and the Supreme court upholds it. I get my dander up when the Alameda County Sheriff blows a $300M budget and still neglects inmates to death. But I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my dander on some jackass state senator grandstanding in rural Montana. I've got better things to spend my time on, and so do you.

klyrs 4y ago

> WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction Earthquake in Turkiye and Sudan this week: observable, not repeatable. I claim that the earthquake did happen. Is that fact or theory?

keithnz 4y ago

not being american.... why don't you guys have national standards for things like education?

WalterBright 4y ago
> national standards We don't like central planning.
jasonfarnon 4y ago
federalism? more practically, because there's a greater diversity of values?
codingdave 4y ago
We do, but states can over-ride them with their own choices. There are many layers of government in the USA - Federal, State, County, City, and sometimes even more granular. There are also school districts which have their own policies, and that doesn't even get into all the small government entities that even Americans don't think about much like library systems, utilities, water districts, etc. Between all that, one layer of government having standards is not always as meaningful or decisive as one might think.
crazygringo 4y ago
I'm not defending it -- but it's because it's a federal government, not a centralized government. One of the key tenets is therefore that governing is left to the states if there isn't a compelling reason that it needs to be done at a national level. Things like national defense and regulating interstate commerce can only be done nationally, so they are. But education is actually one of the classic examples in a federal system where it's hard to argue a compelling reason for nationalization. To the contrary, it's argued that if states are free to experiment then they can come up with better education standards and copy each other organically. But they can also tailor education to meet their local cultural values and history. Of course, more and more things have become "nationalized" over the past century just because it's more efficient and less complicated. But wow do people argue about it.
offlinenative 4y ago

efitz 4y ago

This article appears very partisan and I really can’t discern what is actually going on from it. At face value it seems to be a misunderstanding by a legislator of the difference between the lay definition of the word “theory” and the usage of that word in scientific contexts. More likely, there is some behind the scenes fight going on and a silly sounding law is being proposed to fight it. However the article is stuck in the trope that Republicans are all theocratic bumpkins that despise knowledge; I can’t take that seriously as characterizing your political opponents as evil or stupid is the oldest form of propaganda.

polemic 4y ago
The article states facts. It doesn't call anyone evil, or stupid. But at face value, outlawing the teaching of well established scientific theory in science class is exactly the sort of thing you'd do if you were a theocratic bumpkin who despised knowledge.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> However the article is stuck in the trope that Republicans are all theocratic bumpkins that despise knowledge; I can’t take that seriously as characterizing your political opponents as evil or stupid is the oldest form of propaganda. If the shoe fits /s But seriously, trying to restrict education is what republicans are trying to do. There’s no way around that. They’re limiting what can be taught for some sort of political gain. Not every republican voter is a bumpkin of course, but a large chunk of republican state legislators are fighting very public battles to rewrite textbooks. Some of which have a religious bent, implicitly or explicitly. At face value, yes looks a misunderstanding over the word “theory”. But is it, or is it using this vague definition to disrupt science? Why was this bill introduced at all, that’s the real question. Does the senator think that students should spend more time in science learning about gravity instead of magic… or perhaps less time on “the theory of evolution”. The bills sponsor explicitly is anti-vaccine and pro-Christian-education, and has said that more of “religious facts” should be taught in school. So I would guess this was not an honest mistake to force schools to teach “real facts” instead… but to exploit scientific nomenclature of “theories” to interrupt honest and accurate education.
4y ago

nixpulvis 4y ago

Parents should be focused on helping their children navigate facts and theories they disagree with, not sheltering them from their existence. This applies equally regardless of the theory you agree or disagree with. You think evolution is a hoax? Fine, so teach your own damn kids how to pass the class taught by heathens. You think signing the national anthem before class is cringy? Fine, so make fun of it at home and record parody videos. My point is, not everyone is going to agree about everything, but I wish we all had a bit more practice getting along. This idea that we can cleanly separate a theory from a fact and only teach students absolute truth is dangerous and goes against the critical thinking skills we all need to progress and learn.

DueDilligence 4y ago

.. more socio/psychopaths with too much power in places where they don't need to be.

Slava_Propanei 4y ago

[dead]