Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Kansas Science Standards Redefine “Science”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Go here and you’ll be able to download a “Comparison Document” that shows how the new Kansas Science Standards deviate from the old. The change that particularly struck me was the following:

Old characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the natural world.”

New characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces.”

Besides defining intelligent design out of existence, this new definition defines what have traditionally been regarded as distinctly human traits, such as free will and consciousness, which science studies, also out of existence.

It’s all to the good that the scientific materialists have introduced this ideologically charged definition of science, perhaps not for the Kansas students who have this mischaracterization of science foisted on them, but for the broader purpose of hashing out just what is the nature of science and whether it should be defined reductionistically and materialistically.

Questions:

  • What is matter?
  • What is energy?
  • What are forces?
  • Why should we think these are adequate for scientific inquiry?

Materialistic answers to these questions are insupportable in the wider public square. Indeed, try to justify the “inalienable rights” ascribed in the Declaration of Independence not in terms of a creator but in terms of “material forces.” It doesn’t work.

As one colleague pointed out, like the Fugitive Slave Act, policies and laws like this point up the bad faith of those who implement them. The scientific materialists are overreaching themselves and setting themselves up for a fall.

Comments
New characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces.”
I'd have no problem with this as long as it's made readily apparent that "matter, energy, and forces" aren't static. As in, as categories they can be extended to include more subjects as scientific research continues. Meaning, that different types of "matter, energy, and forces" originated currently known "matter, energy, and forces". After all, even if you presume the designer is some sort of god that entity has its own state of existence and its composed of something. One single question for Jack: Did you write this definition with the intention to exclude ID as science?Patrick
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
""scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces."" "That’s physics. One particular branch of science. Like duh."
Right on, Dave. Science is much more encompassing than a collection of physical laws. That is why materialists so often try to simplify origins by attribuiting life solely to Evolution, and then attaching an attribution of conciseness by comparing it with the 'Law of Gravity', an absurd comparison. The underlying intellegence of design may not be assessable in depth by science, but it is wrong to deny that it exists, and to foist that view on the impressionable (K-12). Although it may not be testable empirically, it needs to remain an open question, particularly to young minds. The word 'design' has become not just a non sequitur in science classrooms, but a profanity. Mention the term sans the word 'apparent' in front of it will get you in trouble. Instead of having a world view as it has in the past, science is becoming myopic by limiting itself an in vitro viewpoint of 'only what I can formulate or test on the bench'. The design inference remains an open question, but a viable and necessary one. By sumarily stating life to be 'physics only' is as shallow as viewing a painting (art) as a collecion of oils, pigments and canvas (physics).LeeBowman
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Joseph, please consider the fact that Max Planck was a very religous man. Planck's quote is an assumption and not stated as fact. big difference.Tims
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Joseph, TOE can scientifically explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. As we discover more and more it becomes more and more evident. Those links that are closest together are the easiest to explain. Perhaps it might be better for you to ask for TOE to explain the physiological and anatomical differences between a human and a cockroach. It can still explain that to some degree, but considering that very little if any research had been done through that many links it would be hard to make an plausible explanation, but not impossible. And please save the link to whyevolution.com. The site misrepresents work from credible scientists and also goes beyond the scope of science in the first place, not to mention much of its information is outdated.Tims
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
to Bill Dembski, You may want to reconsider your position in light of what Max Planck told us.
New characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces.” Besides defining intelligent design out of existence,...- Bill in the OP
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."--Max Planck during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. IOW that is what his scientific research led him to. I am sure that Jack wouldn't mind adding Planck's quote to the standards or at least making sure the students are aware of it.Joseph
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Wow, after reading the long lists of posts I am amazed at how unrealistic some are being in what should be taught to children. Jack is right on his numerous responses that many of the topics that people have brought up belong in a college’s course. Some are not paying attention of the scope of the guidelines, the guidelines do not define college standards for science. Truly how many students in the secondary school system go to defining the relationship between objects beyond what the standards are listing in a high school science class? Most have a difficult time understanding chemistry and physics let alone biology. Most of you fail to understand that the unit that normally is coved by evolution in most of the US high school biology classes is only a day or two at most. It seems to me that the little impact that it would make on defining a person’s position in universe is a bit overstated. For those who would say why not teach ID as well, well provide the evidence and the research. What I do not understand is why a philosophy that is still immature would feel the need to be inserted into a curriculum. This is why so many scientists link ID with a religious agenda, the method for educating the public is go after those with more impressionable minds without substantial evidence to support the philosophy. Superstring theory is an example of a ground breaking hypothesis that has had much press and a few papers but is still being challenged in the physics world today. Superstring theory started being developed in the 70’s! Why would something like ID that came out at the earliest in the late 80’s would feel the need to be placed into the class room before something like Superstring theory (which has more scientific reviewed papers and published works than ID)? You see the difference? As for time and space, space is the lack of matter and time would fit the definition of a force. If you can not see that then open your eyes. The standards do fit for teaching science to children up to the college level. The basic high school physics class, one not college linked, does not even cover anti matter nor does any astronomy class for that matter taught in a high school. The terms defined by the board fit the scope of the high school student’s science exposure. To clarify something else that was posted, science does not try to figure out man's place in the universe and purpose in life, which is for philosophy or religion to do. Science tries to explain, using a natural toolset, how things are the way they are not why. To apply direction to science outside of natural laws would be considered engineering, not science. Science does not make things, engineers do. As Jack pointed out the standards do not limit the scope of other fields such as the humanities. The standards just define the scope of science in the secondary school system of Kansas. Jack the standards that are in place in Kansas are almost as good as you can get without applying to much that would over whelm the children and dilute the effectiveness of what is being taught. People you have to build a basic foundation and quite honestly, the evolution of life is too large of a topic to truly discuss in a high school science class room anyway. To those of you, who would feel slighted because evolution would be touched upon but not ID, well consider this: evolution taught in the high school classroom is barley enough to understand the theory beyond the basics of natural selection. If there is evidence of design that can be proven within the toolsets outlined in the science standards then feel free to present them. Until then ID is a philosophy and not science. For what it is worth it amazes me why ID is going after high school children instead of trying to do research at a university level. Doug, please understand that most of your post is based on the view points of one religion and that science is not a tool for one or any religion, it is secular by nature of its purpose, to uncover facts. Science does not make claim as why it would be wrong or right for homosexual relationships, just how it can happen, the same with religious claims. For science to truly present facts in an unadulterated way it has to remain secular.Tims
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Jack Krebs: Why the world is as it is is a different question - one that is beyond science itself. "Argue for your limitations, and you are right, they are yours." Richard Bach in "Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah". Perhaps Jack should read "The Privileged Planet". Through scientific investigation the authors were able to determine a purpose to the universe. Jack Krebs: The origin of the different species is covered by the theory of evolution. Covered by but not scientifically explained by. IOW the theory of evolution canNOT scientifically explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. So I trust that premise will no longer be discussed in a Kansas science classroom.Joseph
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
People like Jack couldn't fuel the homeschool/private school movement any faster if they were consciously trying to do so. The faster government schools are neutralized by competition, the better.russ
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Saying that matter, energy, and forces are the only means by which we can explain the origin of matter, energy, and forces is like standing in a bushel basket and trying to lift yourself ten feet into the air. These demarcationist attempts to weed design out of the discussion are invariably problematic and self-defeating. Science is the investigation of the world around us. Period. We might presume that such a world is purely material, but presuming that our explantions must therefore be material as well is to get the cart before the horse. It is to let our presumtions drive our data rather than allow the data to drive our conclusions. Truly free scientific inquiry goes where it goes. If it goes to materialist explanation, then fine. But if it goes towards design, even if it goes to the feet of the Almighty, that is no less a reasonable scientific interpretation of the data. Further, the only reason we even try to herd scientific inquiry down this materialist path is out of some misguided (and wholly misunderstood) notion that allowing design inferences somehow violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It does nothing of the kind. A design inference MIGHT suggest a religious implication, but that is a far cry from the establishment of any religion.TerryL
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
"His view of science isn’t aimed at discovering the truth of the natural world. There are whole schools of the philosophy of science in which 'the truth about the natural world' is quite explictly not the aim of the exercise, instead the aim is to figure out 'what works' and 'what is predictive and useful'. - Jason Rennie No student is ever going to know this. Students think their teachers are explaining reality to them. That's why some religious students have "epiphanies" when they "realize" that science debunks what they thought was real and true. This is fine BTW, the only problem is if someone puts forward this definition of science but then tries to pretend they are doing science in a way that seeks to understand how the world really is. Then the definition is insufficent."russ
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces That's physics. One particular branch of science. Like duh. DaveScot
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
"scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces". Ok. Than we have no scientific knowledge if someone use termes of time and space. We don't know what space really mean and what exactly time really is. No problem, according to the new definition it is not important for real scientific knowledge. Further more we didn't have scientific knowledge if we use the term "information". That makes the structure of the DNA simplier for naturalistic "scientists"...klauslange
February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
"Under the new rules, can you scientifically demonstrate that the lead in my car’s battery was actually forged in a star?" No, and his approach doesn't try to. Scientific Anti-realism isn't aimed at working out what actually happened. It aims at usefulness not truth. I agree with you that there is a concern of teaching kids a limited definition that causes them to look for causes that might not exist. Which is why I would strongly advocate making it clear to kids the anti-realist nature of this approach to science and its strengths and weaknesses. Teaching the kids some basic philosophy of science, different approachs to science, the demarcation problem, Kuhn's ideas on paradigms, the problem with induction, Poppers falsificationism, the problems with logical positivism, etc, would probably teach them a lot more about how science works and what are its strenghts etc, then any collection of facts. I don't think it needs to be so hard and complicated that the kids couldn't follow it either. The ideas themselves are pretty straightforward and unless american kids are significantly dumber than there australia counterparts, I think they would probably benifit from it. Also teaching the kids some history of science would be good as well, to give them a proper perspecitve. I realise such suggestions are an enormous ask because you need to find somewhere to fit all of this in, but perhaps the problem is the overall approach to science education, and maybe public education, in the first place.Jason Rennie
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
"Your view of science seems to be a science stopper, or at at least a handicap to discovering the truth about the natural world." His view of science isn't aimed at discovering the truth of the natural world. There are whole schools of the philosophy of science in which "the truth about the natural world" is quite explictly not the aim of the exercise, instead the aim is to figure out "what works" and "what is predictive and useful". This is fine BTW, the only problem is if someone puts forward this definition of science but then tries to pretend they are doing science in a way that seeks to understand how the world really is. Then the definition is insufficent.Jason Rennie
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
Thanks for the reply Jack. “Any questions of origins”? What do you mean? The origin of lead molecules is not outside the scope of science - they were forged in stars. The origin of the different species is covered by the theory of evolution. The origin of the universe - well that’s right on the booundary of science." I didn't have in mind the origin of lead in nuclear fusion. But the origin of the universe cannot be explained in the terms of what you have put forward and besides in terms of the anti-realist approach to science you are endorsing, it is irrelevant and only useful in so far as it is predictivly useful, such speculations are useless for getting at anything like truth about the world. "Nature of mind? Possibly. We are certainly finding lots of correlations between materials states of the brain and aspects of conscious experience, but there may still be aspects of mind that fall outside science." Again, beyond its predictive power, the anti-realism you are advocating doesn't tell us anything very meaningful about the mind at all. The definition you have put forward cannot speak even in principle to the existence of something like a soul because there is no evidence either way that can be put forward based on this understanding of science. Yet I have my doubts that this would be made clear to the kids. Which is the concern. "Nature of man? Same answer. For instance, the Pope’s Encyclical of 1996 made a clear distinction between the material body and the immaterial soul: there is certainly a material aspect to the nature of man, but there may be an immaterial aspect also whose study falls outside science." I was referring to the nature of man, as questions about his place in the universe and purpose in life. These are questions a scientific realist could get sciences input on, but your scientific anti-realism explictly rules such possibilites out because science is not aimed at telling us about the real world based on your defintion. As to evolution, if science is the anti-realist enterprise you are suggesting then questions of origins are outside sciences scope, if you are looking for real answers because science cannot provide such answers. The question is out of scope because you rule out all possibilities bar a small number by definition. So evolutionary theory may prove useful and make some predictive observations (although that would seem to be an open question) it does not actually tell us anything true about the origin and development of life because that is outside the scope of intrumentalist science. Obviously many people here are going to seriously doubt that the subject will be taught in this fashion even though your definition demands such be the case because of its inherent anti-realism. "Science derives its power from its limitations. Science studies the passing of events, one to the next, that are adjacent, in some sense, in time and space. As such, it comes to insrumental conclusions about temporal chains of cause-and-effect." This is where teaching the kids a little philosophy of science and the intrinsic problems with inductive inferences like this would probably teach them far more than a few extra facts. "If one doesn’t expect more from it than it can produce, and appreciates it for what it is, then I don’t see a problem." The problem is that there are lots of very motivated individuals that do not approach science in this way but want to make the sort of anti-realist claim you made and yet endorse some variety of scientific realism. You can see this sort of confusion is rampant at places like PT and Pharangya the "#1 Science blog" (even though they hardly talk about science at all). "This will take us way off-topic, and the last time I visited this site we got into a long discussion about this. My position, and the position of many, is that there are quite orthodox Christian perspectives that accept the definition of science as stated in the Kansas science standards. I reject strongly the idea that science as so defined is a “pre-indoctrination into atheism,” " That isn't what I said though. I agree your scientific anti-realist approach is a perfectly legitimate approach to science, just as an anti-scientific anti-realist approach (Like Kuhn's) or a scientific realist approach would be perfectly legitimate. When it turns into "pre-indoctrination in atheism" is when you scientific anti-realism, with its artifical restriction on answers and disregard for the actual reality of thing, preferring instead the simple instrumental use and predictive power to a search for "the way reality really is", is put forward but then a sleight of hand is done and this presented as a scientific realist approach to nature, where science is supposed to be working out the way nature really is. When this is done you have definitely crossed the line into what could quite rightly be "pre-atheist indoctrination". If you are concerned about this getting our of hand here, but wish to continue the discussion in private you are welcome to send me an email. thesciphishow@gmail.com Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.Jason Rennie
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Jack, you would have us believe that science is only about exterior surfaces and that we should all just sit down and shut up and listen to the experts tell us to go ahead and marry men to men and tell our kids that it doesn't matter because the muslim religion is just as good as the one that we have here in america so don't worry because there is no heaven anyway, unless you're budhist or muslim, in which case there might be, but if you burn our flag, it makes you cool like all the scientists who claim that all we are is a temporary agglomeration of atoms held together with organic vegetables and defended by vegetarian hippies. You just don't get it.Doug
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
Jack K: “Any questions of origins”? What do you mean? The origin of lead molecules is not outside the scope of science - they were forged in stars. The origin of the different species is covered by the theory of evolution. The origin of the universe - well that’s right on the booundary of science. ... Under the new rules, can you scientifically demonstrate that the lead in my car's battery was actually forged in a star? Would it be fair to say that the explanation of the origin of species with/by the theory of evolution, could in actuality be wrong, AND because of the limitations the committe imposed (ie. matter/energy/"forces"), that all scientific inquiry into life is stuck in a no win case to try to stretch one's imagination into only those materialistic explanations. And hence, still in the case it is outside the committee limitations, that the student becoem scientist could very easily be wasting his/her life pursuing a venture of futility? All because of a materialist's preferences? I persoanlly wouldn't want to have a part in possibly misleading thousands of children into a life's pursuit trapped in futility.JGuy
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Science takes the physical world as it is and explores how they various aspects relate to each other. Jack, interesting points. Why wouldn't it be fair to relate DNA to computer code and say it more closely resembles the planned/designed object than, say, a pattern of raindrops on a rock, and then conclude that DNA is designed.tribune7
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
"Nature of mind? Possibly. We are certainly finding lots of correlations between materials states of the brain and aspects of conscious experience, but there may still be aspects of mind that fall outside science." - Jack Krebs If there are aspects of mind that fall outside of science (as you define science), and if it turns out that a mind is responsible for the apparent design we observe in nature, then using your definition of science we will never detect that design! Your view of science seems to be a science stopper, or at at least a handicap to discovering the truth about the natural world.russ
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
“scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces.”
This just seems so 19th-century. Having worked in the computer field for the past 20 years I am especially aware that the "Information Revolution" has probably had more of an effect on our daily lives than any other scientific advance of the last 50 years. It is my impression that even in biology, the relevance of information science is increasing exponentially. I suspect that within 10 years (if not already), trying to understand the workings of the cell only in terms of "matter, energy, and forces" will make as much sense as trying to understand Linux, Windows, or Mac OS only in terms of "matter, energy, and forces".sagebrush gardener
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Gil writes,
Ask the average person what is most important in life and you will get answers like: love, a sense of ultimate purpose, meaningful and rewarding work, family, making a contribution, caring for others, fulfilling personal relationships, etc. These are things that materialistic science can’t address even in principle.
I agree. I've been saying that, I think. Gil continues,
So what does that tell us? Just be honest: Darwinism and the hypothesis of the origin of all of life through stochastic processes and natural selection is a 19th century myth ...
I disagree. Furthermore, this strikes me as a non sequiter in respect to your first point. The importance of all those things you mention above is not reduced just because we have a material body. Science studies the material world. Religion, philosophy, art, the humanities, the family and so on are where we study all those other things. They are not in opposition to each other.Jack Krebs
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
Saying science is limited to the study if matter, energy, and forces, is like saying Art is limited to painting, sculpture, and music. Science is not limited to matter, energy, and forces no more then Art is limited to the above. How about cognitive science? Is thought made up of matter, energy, or forces? Is the study of the mind therefore not a science? What is "natural"? Is the work of anthropologists who seek to learn from the cultural world not science because it deals with concepts rather then physical things? It seems rather obvious that the definition that Kansas is using is nothing more then a tool to discredit non materialistic science research as being not-science. The real tools are those who think they can fool everyone into believing their phony and lame excuses to the contrary. Why not invent a new word for your phony lame ploy? How about Sciencespeak? I'm stickin to the actual meaning of the word.mentok
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Jack, Ask the average person what is most important in life and you will get answers like: love, a sense of ultimate purpose, meaningful and rewarding work, family, making a contribution, caring for others, fulfilling personal relationships, etc. These are things that materialistic science can't address even in principle. So what does that tell us? Just be honest: Darwinism and the hypothesis of the origin of all of life through stochastic processes and natural selection is a 19th century myth -- completely at odds with the evidence and simple mathematical reasoning -- designed to explain away in materialistic terms everything that ultimately matters. Children are not stupid, and they pick up immediately on the implications of Darwinian theory. This is why parents who think that their children are more than glorified chemistry are angered by the indoctrination their children receive in the public schools, and the fact that even the scientific problems with Darwinian theory are excluded from discussion by coercion and legal mandate.GilDodgen
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
While I was composing the last post, Jason replied, so here is more in response: Jason writes,
Fair enough, I agree with you. However as the definition currently stands an awful lot of things are outside the reach of science. Any questions of origins certianly is, any questions of the nature of mind, the nature of man, SETI, etc.
I'm don't agree with all your examples. "Any questions of origins"? What do you mean? The origin of lead molecules is not outside the scope of science - they were forged in stars. The origin of the different species is covered by the theory of evolution. The origin of the universe - well that's right on the booundary of science. Nature of mind? Possibly. We are certainly finding lots of correlations between materials states of the brain and aspects of conscious experience, but there may still be aspects of mind that fall outside science. Nature of man? Same answer. For instance, the Pope's Encyclical of 1996 made a clear distinction between the material body and the immaterial soul: there is certainly a material aspect to the nature of man, but there may be an immaterial aspect also whose study falls outside science. SETI: seems like that is a search for a material cause (other beings in the universe), unless one things that immaterial beings might be sending us signals. Next:
Worse yet, everything within the reach of science is purely instrumental in nature
But why is this a problem? I, and many others, acknowledge that there are other kinds of things to know about and other aspects of being a human than are covered by science. Science derives its power from its limitations. Science studies the passing of events, one to the next, that are adjacent, in some sense, in time and space. As such, it comes to insrumental conclusions about temporal chains of cause-and-effect. This works within the scope of the conclusions science is trying to reach. If one doesn't expect more from it than it can produce, and appreciates it for what it is, then I don't see a problem. And last,
... such a definition of science does work as a nice sort of “pre-indoctrination into atheism” , if presented with an assertion about sciences ability to understand the natural world, as some are want to claim.
This will take us way off-topic, and the last time I visited this site we got into a long discussion about this. My position, and the position of many, is that there are quite orthodox Christian perspectives that accept the definition of science as stated in the Kansas science standards. I reject strongly the idea that science as so defined is a “pre-indoctrination into atheism,”Jack Krebs
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
Lots of interesting comments. I'd like to keep my responses focused on the opening post, and on my general proposition that the Kansas science standards do not define "out of existence" such things as free will and consciousness, but rather properly delimit the things of things science can do and the kind of things it can't. Eric Anderson writes,
I think it is also worthwhile for us to consider whether the requirement of seeking “natural” explanations is out of step with much of the country (at least as other states’ definitions existed a year and a half ago).
I am aware of the study on the DI's website. Kansas has fought the science standards battle twice in the last eight years, and both times the nature of science has been an issue. We in Kansas are acutely aware of the issue in ways that other states perhaps have not been when they wrote their standards. I'm fairly certain that in those other 40 states those that wrote their standards and the larger body of scientists and science educators in their states would agree with the intent of our definition, because I think there is no doubt that around the world, in practice, science seeks natural explanations. Also, there is a great deal more about the nature of science in our standards: based on empirical observations, reliant on testable hypotheses, subject to logical consistency, open to further refinement or invalidation, and so on. I really don't think that in practice our definition differs from those other states. Writing short concise definitions of science is not easy, and, I repeat, those states which have not faced challenges about the nature of science have not had the need Kansas has had to be very explicit. Please also remember that these are K-12 public education standards, not college level philosophy of science standards. There are complexities and sophisticated issues in the philosophy of science that are beyond the scope of a few paragraphs about core knowledge for L-12 education. Eric also writes,
Just out of curiosity, would you view archaeology, forensic science and SETI as unscientific, under the Kansas wording?
No, although none of those three actual arise in the science standards: SETI is definitely not a core topic, forensic science is a specialty application not taught in high school, and archaeology would fall in the social studies curriculum under the topic of ancient and prehistoric cultures. But in all three cases one is looking for material causes - people or some type of physical alien being. I know this answer brings up all sorts of issues, but nonetheless the causes being sought in those three cases all do have a material existence. Next, tribune7 writes (and scordova adds a similar question),
So the physical world can be explained in terms of “matter, energy and forcees”? OK, so explain where these matter, energy and forces come from. Should be no prob for science according to the definition.
No, this is not the case. Science takes the physical world as it is and explores how they various aspects relate to each other. Why the world is as it is is a different question - one that is beyond science itself. This is my personal opinion. The Kansas science standards have nothing to say about this topic. There is certainly no well-established consensus on this subject, so on that ground alone it would not be included in the standards. And, as I just explained, in my opinion there won't ever be a scientific explanation for why the world is as it is because no matter how much we learn, there will always be a boundary at which a final "but why is it like that" will still be unanswered.Jack Krebs
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Thanks for the reply Jack. "I just don’t expect science to be able to be the exclusive means by which I, or anyone else, comes to conclusions about them." Fair enough, I agree with you. However as the definition currently stands an awful lot of things are outside the reach of science. Any questions of origins certianly is, any questions of the nature of mind, the nature of man, SETI, etc. Worse yet, everything within the reach of science is purely instrumental in nature. If you want to unequivocally declare such things to be the nature of science that is fine, but if you are doing that, then I think you would do well to explictly put this in the standard, or else you leave yourself open to exactly the charge Bill leveled at you. After all, given the behavior of others in the past over these sorts of questions, not to mention Eugenie Scott's recent mendacity over her position on Methodological Naturalism, such conclusions are not exactly unreasonable to infer from a statement such as the one you have given above, and such a definition of science does work as a nice sort of "pre-indoctrination into atheism" , if presented with an assertion about sciences ability to understand the natural world, as some are want to claim. So I don't have a problem with the definition as such, provided it is made clear what it actually means and this isn't left as an unspoken assumption. True, I am not from Kansas, or even from the US (Australia actually), so it wont make any direct difference to me what you actually choose to do, but I think you'll save yourself an awful lot of trouble and difficulty by being clear at the outset.Jason Rennie
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces." So the physical world can be explained in terms of "matter, energy and forcees"? OK, so explain where these matter, energy and forces come from. Should be no prob for science according to the definition.tribune7
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Science isn’t everything. That seems simple to me.
That wasn't the point, the defintion you've been advocating definition is wrong even by standards of modern science. The study of biological information transcends questions of matter and energy. I also pointed out above, modern quantum physics is framed in terms of information. Even a modern peer-reviewed paper by Trevors and Abel point out biological information in the primordial organism is not reducible to matter, energy, and forces. Thus we have aspects of the physical world not resolvable to matter, energy, and forces. The defnitions you've been so admiring are bad science even by the standards of science.scordova
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Jason asks, Have you considered adding a philosophy and history of science course to the syllabus ? I know that is an enormous ask and probably not practical, but it seems worth at least asking the question. My wife is a high school chemistry teacher, so do have some idea of the potential difficulty of what I suggest. Your wife is probably right on this one. :) Very few schools (maybe big schools in affluent, well-educated districts) would have room in the curriculum or enough capable students to have a complete course like this. Very few high schools even have a general philosophy course. This is really a topic for the college level. The Kansas state school Board did briefly discuss the idea of comparative religion standards, but both practical and political problems were immediately evident and so the discussion quickly died. There are strands of the philosophy and history of science in some advanced science class, but there is so much content to teach that such are going to be fairly limited and conventional. I do some of this kind of thing in the upper level math courses I teach - the kids are interested, but very unsophisticated. So, I repeat, we're really talking college level content here. Jason also asks,
Are you bothered by the intrinsically anti-realist (instrumentalist) take on science that this definition implies?
No. Science pragmatically takes a certain view of the world because that is what is accessible to us through the processes and principles that have been developed as part of science over the centuries. Other ways of looking at the world involve beliefs that are not subject to the same kind of consensus-building that science provides. Does that mean they are wrong, or meaningless? No. That's just means we need to build our understanding of these things in different ways than what is provided by science. I am all for people discussing things such as free will, consciousness, mind, God, perfect Platonic circles, love, justice, ethics, etc. - these are critical topics about being a human being. I just don't expect science to be able to be the exclusive means by which I, or anyone else, comes to conclusions about them. Science isn't everything. That seems simple to me.Jack Krebs
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs, If science tries to expalin the origin of life using the standards of matter/enrgy/forces that the committee you were a part of came up with...then.. Don't you see how these standards automatically rule out any explanations for the diveristy and origin of life that may very well be fact. And anyone setting out to expalin life with the limited tool box you provide will be very possibly wasting their life pursuing something that can nto be explained with box of stuff - matter/energy/forces. Would intelligence be allowed to be a force? If life is reduced to the mateiral world.. then intelligence is materially derived exactly as natural selection is material derived. You can not point to any metric device to measure th enatrual selective "force".. anymore than you can intelligence. Anyway. Thoughts? JGuyJGuy
February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply