5 ms·

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

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.

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.