4 ms·

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 ht

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 So, Newton's Laws would seem to be okay to teach because it's observable and repeatable despite being superseded by more complete theories.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 And there doesn't seem to be anything against teaching the scientific method or the the existence of superseded, unproven, disproven, etc., theories.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.

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.