Bravo! And there is the idea (perhaps the same as put forth by Robert) that "theory" means any cockamamie idea that happens to pop into one's head, therefore all theories (or at least the ones one doesn't like) are just cockamamie ideas. This is one of the roots of anti-intellectualism that nurtures belief as opposed to, and as a replacement for, thought. This leads to the belief that any opinion on any subject is "just as good" as any other, which circles back into a claimed validation of any belief. This leads to the ultimate in self-righteousness, which permits any individual to do or say anything and not be questioned--by others, and certainly not by oneself. One can claim, for example, that "intelligent design" is "just as good" as the theory of evolution, and therefore should be given "equal weight" in, say, the classroom. Perhaps it should--provided that it is not "instructed." Evolution should, of course, be subject to the same scrutiny. (I cringe every time someone asks me if I "believe in" evolution.)
But it is the questioning that distinguishes the reasonableness of the hypothesis, and a valid hypotheses will stand the test. "Belief systems" can only declare, and they are distinguished by the prohibition of questioning, the requirement of adherence to the belief. That is how authoritarians secure and maintain control. Ironically, it appeals to other authoritarian personalities who are the most vulnerable to the suggestion that they need not think, that all questions have been answered. Luckily for human destiny, a certain percentage of us at least vacillate a bit about Authority. I vacillate about whether or not the trend is toward or away from Authority. At the moment, I'm kinda pessimistic. Theories like continental drift, for example, are both built on previous conjectures based on hunches based on observations that, through the crucible of additional observations, questioning, into an integrated whole that gains sufficient strength to be more widely accepted. Throughout this process there is always a significant, if not dominant authoritarian fraction that vigorously resist anything that questions their own presumptions and figuratively or literally try to burn the "heretics" at the stake. It took about a half-century for continental drift to find its way into the classrooms to any significant degree. Believers always feel threatened by questioning. Integrators (thinkers) always welcome criticism, and happily refute it or accept it as a necessary bit of grit in the theory-polishing process. Well, "always" is a bit too strong a term, perhaps. I reckon we all fall into one category or the other at times, but as we grow or grow older, we either become increasingly authoritarian or more open to question. One can usually learn more through specifics and principles than from vagueness and generalization. Critical assessment must, by definition, be relevant and specific. Criticism, in the defensive (negative) sense, is characterized by innuendo. Integrators revel in the former and ignore the latter. That is what distinguishes true science from "belief systems." By definition, all "new" thought comes from "outliers." Statistically, they are "insignificant," and are widely treated as such. That's "my" theory (or should I say "opinion?"). (For better or for worse, it was built on the shoulders of others, that I might see farther into the gulf of my ignorance, and be at peace that there are oceans beyond that gulf I shall never see.) If for no other reason than to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, I invite specific, relevant, criticism. WT At 09:53 AM 11/30/2006, Robert Hamilton wrote: >One of the biggest stumbling blocks I have to deal with when teaching >"what is science" is the "hypothetico-deductive" model of a "theory" >presented in far too many science textbooks. I refer specifically to the >fool notion that theories start out as some sort of speculation that you >develop into an hypothesis, which you then test. If through testing the >hypothesis is repeatedly validated it becomes a theory, and if over some >stretch of time the theory is consistently validated it becomes a law. >We need to use all our powers of persuasion to have this nonsense >removed from any and all such textbooks. It should only be referred to >as a silly thing once taught! > >A theory is a scientific explanation; period. The Chromosome Theory of >Inheritance. Cell Theory. The Theory of Evolution. These theories >explain observed regularities like laws and facts. They are not carved >in stone. They are tentative explanations. Cell Theory, in the broad >sense at least, continues to evolve, even though no one doubts that all >living things are composed of cells...as far as we know! Current theory >represents the sate of knowledge that has developed over all previous >years involving interactions amongst all interested researchers and >commentators over those years. Many of these people are among the most >well educated and intelligent people in our society, and current theory >is the consensus view amongst those people. So why can't we teach that >theories are thus? > >Instead, we get the notion in the public, one that we instill into the >public psyche ourselves, that theories are weak tentative explanations >that require further validation to be fully accepted? I always ask >students "what is a theory" in comps. I really try to shoot down the >myth of the H-D view of a theory in classes...and yet will too often get >that back when I ask what is a theory...a theory is a weak tentative >explanation that needs further verification to become a law! It is my >own failing in many ways, but I really do get quite aggressive on the >issue in class. It seems to me that what people learn first about such >issues is retained regardless of what they may learn afterwards, and it >is very difficult to change those first learned definitions. This gets >me back to my main point here...we need to use all of our powers of >persuasion to get rid of the H-D myth! > >Rob Hamilton > >"So easy it seemed once found, which yet >unfound most would have thought impossible" > >John Milton >________________________________________ > >Robert G. Hamilton >Department of Biological Sciences >Mississippi College >P.O. Box 4045 >200 South Capitol Street >Clinton, MS 39058 >Phone: (601) 925-3872 >FAX (601) 925-3978 > > >>> Kristina Pendergrass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/30/2006 8:48 AM > >>> >I believe that the public's scientific ignorance (and it is a mighty >ignorance!) stems from several factors: > >1. only rudimentary requirement of science classes in high school (For >example, we were required to take only 2 semesters' worth of science >classes: general science I and general science II in high school, and >this >was about 15 years ago.) > >2. general disinterest (There are certain laypeople who derive great >enjoyment from reading general and popular science books, but I think >it >safe to say that the majority of North Americans are either >disinterested >in continuing scientific, or any other, learning in their spare time, >or >simply have too many other daily-life-type concerns that occupy their >minds/time/energy.) > >3. portrayal of science and scientists in the media, including for >political use (I think this is the most pervasive and dangerous; most >North Americans probably watch network news programs at least once a >week >if not once a day. If you watch the news, scientists are portrayed >pretty >much as flip-floppers, ostensibly saying "to lower cholesterol, do >this" >and the next week "to lower cholesterol, don't do the thing we told >you >last week, instead do this". A similar situation exists with the >climate >change debate. News broadcasters don't necessarily have the >scientific >background to make correct or qualified statements about the results >of >scientific studies/papers, and they certainly don't have the time to >fit >much of anything into a 30-second newsbyte.). (I don't read newspapers >so >I don't know how science & scientists fare there). > >4. crying wolf (I'm sorry I don't recall who first mentioned this in >this >thread, but I agree that scientists have been--or have been portrayed >as--forecasting doom and gloom for too long. Unless the public sees >ready >evidence that something negative is occurring and will continue to get >worse, they are not likely to pay much mind to such prophecies). > >5. apathy (Some people are simply of the mindset that if something >does >not affect them directly, why should they care? If a mosquito species >goes extinct in China, or Brazilian rainforests are cut down, it does >not >affect them immediately or directly. Along a perhaps-similar vein, >some >people believe God will rectify everything. I live in the South U.S. >and >about a year ago I was listening to a popular redneck-type talk show: >the >people believed honestly that the Earth was given to humans to do as >we >will, and we cannot destroy it because God has not given us the >capacity >to do so.) > >I have NO idea how to change these mindsets. Clearly most people will >never be interested in science to the degree we are, and will >therefore >not have the background knowledge to evaluate scientific arguments >properly. And, if only because of political and corporate agendas, >scientists will always have differing opinions on encompassing topics >such >as climate change. The best I can suggest is education and >compassion, >teaching tolerance for other viewpoints and helping children develop >reasoning skills in general. > >Apologies for the length of this diatribe! > >Kristina Pendergrass >Research Associate, >Scott-Ritchey Research Center >College of Veterinary Medicine >Auburn University, AL 36849 >334.844.5574
