Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Only a Theory, Says School Board
BendingSpoons writes "A Seattle school board has placed a moratorium on screenings of 'An Inconvenient Truth', having found its subject matter too controversial. Echoing the language of the evolution debate, the school board found that students must be told that global warming is only a theory and presented with an opposing viewpoint. The ban was prompted by the complaints of a parent: '"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."'"
But what do other opposing sources say?
The Koran?
Hindu beliefs?
Various Native (North and South) American legends?
Buddhist Teachings?
If you are going to provide one opposing viewpoint, you better be ready to provide many others as well.
This space unintentionally left blank.
In other words ...
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
Kids are often surprisingly smart, if you just tell them the real deal. A critical missing element of public education is teaching kids to adjudicate competing claims. This topic is a wonderful opportunity to teach science, civics, critical thinking, and world religions in a single issue, without being dry.
It would be a shame for us to simply demand that the school board decide that global warming is the truth, and miss a great teaching opportunity. I hope we don't do that.
Exactly. Use the DVD as a teaching tool. Teach the kids to look at it critically, find fault ( if they can ) and draw conclusions. Experiment, research the facts.
Spoonfeeding them the answer and expecting them to swallow it without thinking isn't teaching, it's brainwashing. Even if you're brainwashing with correct information, it's still brainwashing.
A resonable science class wouldn't just tell students that oxygen is necessary for a candle to burn, but would allow the students to experiment to "prove" it to themselves, to observe the conditions that drove someone else to that conclusion years ago.
If you teach that a DVD is 100% correct, and one single fact turns out to be incorrect, does it invalidate the whole DVD? No, but coming to that conclusion requires critical thinking, and critical thinking needs to be taught.
I respect your religion -- and all religions -- but I am one of those people who loathes fundamentalism and bandies about terms like "religious nuts" and "religious fascists." It is not the "religious" side of the equation which I find loathesome, but the "nut" side of it.
Religion does not belong in politics. America fought a revolution to support the idea of brotherhood and equality between humans, and rid the world of archaic notions about some humans being more worthy than other humans, such as so-called "kings" (who, it must be remembered, were thought to derive their political power from divine power).
There is so much about Christianity (and other religions) which is patently un-American, including its references to this dude who died 2,000 years ago as some kind of currently existing "Prince" or a "Lord" or "King" to be "worshipped." Attributing divinity and specialness to certain humans but not others is a slippery path which desensitizes us to tyranny and allows for the hateful mullahs and popes and all the rest of the religious rabble who claim to speak from some special tyrannical authority from on high, instead of from persuasion and reason.
All that said, again, I respect yours or anyone's personal thoughts. If you want to bow down to a green tomato in your own house and predict that one day that green tomato will come flying through the heavens and rapturize people, so be it. But I hope you can understand that in a pluralistic world, many of us have very different faiths about how spirituality and creation and all the rest work, and the most sensible course of action seems to be to respect all faiths.
Take the Moslems and their "infidel" epithet, for example. Poll after poll consistently shows that 96% of the American people believe in God. You would think reasonable people could rejoice in the things they have in common (God) than always fighting over the minutae (whose prophet is the "right" one?)
Denying global warming because your religion makes you think, through faith instead of evidence, that the world is only 14,000 years old is like standing in front of a speeding car and daring it to hit you. The philosopher David Hume tried that with a horse, got clobbered, and realized that reality is actually, in fact, real, and it hurts! Reason is not at all incompatible with faith, but a supplantation of reason by faith is ludicrous and ultimately, evil and tyrannical, leading to concepts like, "Because I believe watching soccer on TV is un-Islamic, I'm going to kill you. Never mind what YOU believe."
It's easy enough for a non-Christian Deist like me (I love God - I hate religion) to denounce guys like this fellow in Washington State. But I really think it is incumbent on the religious who are not "nuts," as you characterize yourself, to do a better job at shouting him down. If the non-tyrannical Christians, Moslems, Jews etcetera don't start stepping up and putting the nut/fascist types of religious folk down, then all that we godly albeit non-religious folk will be able to conclude is that you stand with them, too. If the world needs anything returned or supplanted, it is the replacement of religious nuts by the "normal" religious. Is there such a thing any more, in 2006? Or are you all fascists?
I think you're missing the point. The issue at hand is that EVERY SINGLE EXAMINATION of ANY TOPIC could now be banned from schools unless equal time, money, and attention is given to "it's like that because that's the way God made it".
Welcome back to the Dark Ages, America.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
"only a theory"...
All science ever can be is "just" theories. Some moron will always say that something is "only" a theory and expect that means its probably wrong. Yes atomic theory is "just" a theory, therefore nuclear bombs don't exist. Medical knowledge is all just "guess'" about what people see, medicine must be the hand of god otherwise it wouldn't work. No reputable scientist will back up the last 2 claims but i used to same lines of logic that lead people to believe that global warming does not exist.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Hey, that's almost Pascal's Wager!
how to invest, a novice's guide
I own An Inconvenient Truth (the movie not the book). And I would like to say that although some people still consider the effects that are predicted by that movie to be "a theory," they are hard to disprove.
Dude, when you're arguing with someone that thinks the Earth is 14,000 years old, they're completely oblivious to anything called evidence. Your evidence is wrong, because the Holy Book says I'm right. QED. Then they'll throw in your basic FUD about the unenlightened mind, not seeing the truth and so you can quote scientific evidence by the metric ton, and it will not make any difference at all.
People can hear all the evidence they want, but without religion their life would be emptier. There's noone to watch over you, there's no higher purpose, there's no afterlife, humans are just a slightly more advanced animal, there's noone to pray to, there's noone to right injustices, noone to thank or beg for help - it's all rolls of a dice and you stand alone. Religion is adults' version of an imaginary friend.
Let me play along, and assume ex facto that there is a god (as in any, Jesus' dad, Allah, Jahve, Jehova etc.) That still means at least 2/3rd of the world's population are worshipping a false god (depending on who's right). Let's also assume he's very tolerant of other religions, none of that "you shall have no other gods before me" but clearly worshipping the wrong god shouldn't "work". Then how come every religion seems to "work" for their worshippers? Because they create it themselves, their imaginary friend. Either that, or you have those who claim they're all the same by which I can only conclude that god is schizophrenic, given the number of conflicting teachings.
I think all evidence suggest religious people are wrong, particularly when they try to contradict science like this. And even if one creation myth is right, most of them have to be wrong. However, clearly it is everyone else that is wrong...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Wrong, and your statement itself is ad hominem. Go read the definition, please. Example, from wikipedia:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") is a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument."
Any time your retort's subject matter is your opponent in the debate, that is ad hominem.
Ahhh, but in this case, it wasn't the person that was being attacked. It was a filter that that person had chosen to apply to their perception with demonstrable effects on his ability to draw logical conclusions *in certain situations* which was being attacked.
His stated belief that the earth is 14,000 years old demonstrates this filter applied to his ability to deal with many sciences such as geology, paleontology, etc.
Therefore, his chosen belief system does have a bearing "on his own ability to objectively evaluate the evidence concerning global warming," as the OP said, since that evidence is science-based as well.
That's a perfectly valid argument.
I agree that we need to be better at pointing out that fundamentalists are still at the crude basics of the faith and often completely misunderstand important things. Having them as the figureheads of their religions is like having a kindergardener setup your college curriculum.
We are all just people.
There is nothing at all wrong with showing political films in school so long as your students are not being indoctrinated via presenting the film as fact. I welcome discussion of global warming even though as of now I haven't been shown (though I admit to not having looked in detail for a while now) evidence that convinces me that global warming is and issue or that humans are the cause of it. The key (as with evolution vs creation) is teaching the children to be critical thinkers and giving them the skills to take information from various sources and weigh and measure it before synthesizing it into thier view of reality. If more people were capable of this many of the silly yet world shaking arguments would melt away.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
So, he's against teaching kids about safe sex, and quite obviously doesn't use it himself. He's also obviously some kind of literalist Christian. I mean, no self-respecting science journal would EVER claim the Earth was 14,000 years old. We Humans have been around a lot longer than that (despite being no more than a mere blip on the time line of the Earth), and we have skeletal remains, carbon dating, sedimentary layers, etc. etc. etc. to back it up. Unless just about every form of archeology is ridiculously wrong in every conceivable way (or you go with that "God put that there to trick us" logic, which is a whole other can of worms), there is no way in Hell that can be right.
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
> Yes, I'm sure we'll create a big fuzz over global warming, but I don't see it showing up as more than a blip in the ecosystem
but then so are we as a species. so maybe it's in our best interest to keep what you're calling the blip in a stable equilibrium unless you want us all to go extinct and wait till the next ice age to roll around for it to then get just warm enough for our survival to be possible again. i'm all for stabilizing the environment, if possible, regardless of weather or not it's part of some grand design that make the earth go through hot-flashes and chills cycle as if it were menopausal.
how about you?
Falsifiability is the measure of a sound theory.
But this probably needs to be looked at in the right context.
The point of a theory is to allow you to predict future results, based first on the current state of the universe, and future actions.
Falsifiability is what makes a sound theory; what this means is that you can predict something using it, and then measure the results of an experiment based on that prediction, and decide categorically, based on the outcome of the experiment, whether the theory is true or false. If it's false, then it's no longer a theory, and we throw it away -- or, if it still gives useful approximations, like Newtonian mechanisc, then we keep it around, but constrain the circumstances in which it should be used as a tool.
Any theory that's not falsifiable is not a theory - it's a hypothesis at best, and at worst, it's a conjecture.
So, for example, creationism isn't a sound theory, and it's not even a reasonable hypothesis, since it's not falsifiable. To falsify it, you would have to be able to come up with a repeatable laboratory experiment that could prove, one way or the other, whether or not there is a creator. Since the conjecture that there's a creator is a tautology, it's impossible to do this. So the next best thing is Occam's Razor, which, to paraphrase into plain English, states that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one".
-
Global warming, at this point, is a theory (based on observation, without contradiction), but it's not a very good one. It's falsifiable, but not in our lifetimes, and not under laboratory conditions.
Human activity being the root cause of the currently observed global warming is, at this point, a hypothesis.
And the movies idea of what will happen if human activity continues in the current direction is merely conjecture.
-
So to get back to your question: the more ways, and the easier, and the more controlled the conditions under which you can falsify a theory, the higher the quality of the theory.
As to soundness of a particular thory, the more ways that can (and have been attempted to) falsify it, and failed to do so, the more sound the theory.
-- Terry
"3) Skeptics must be heard and not shouted down and ridiculed."
This is the real important one right here. Science is not an absolute, it's not a religion, it's not a case of "This is right and there shall be no questions." Science is a process of knowing about the natural world and, by it's nature, there must always be the possibility that you are wrong, your hypothesis must be falsifiable. If it's not, it's not science (that's why Creationism isn't science).
Science class should teach that. Students should be taught to think critically, to understand that science changes and grows and that we probably don't live in the magic time when we have all the right answers. For example I remember in high school chemistry we learned about the structure of the atom. However it wasn't a "This is how atoms are," kind of thing, it was an explanation of how the theory had developed and changed. We started off Dalton model (tiny indivisible spheres) and moved on up to the then current theory of electron probability clouds. We learned a little of quantum theory and were made to understand that while we are pretty sure of this stuff, we don't know that we won't have a better understanding of atoms in the future.
This is why global warming raises such an alarm bell with me, because it never seems to be presented in this way. People trumpet it as something of which there is NO DOUBT, a fact, not a theory (it is a theory, so is how gravity works, and so on). If you question it you are stupid, or an industry shill, or ignoring the issue, and so on. That doesn't sound like science to me, that sounds like religion. Something you are supposed to accept on faith, and never question, lest you be branded a heretic.
So while I certainly want global warming, or rather general climate change, theory taught to students, I don't want it handed down as something to which there can be no debate because there IS debate. I want students shown the different arguments, especially when people analyze the same data and come to different conclusions. I want them to learn about computer modeling, its uses and its limitations. Basically I want them to come out with a better understanding of how science is done and the information surrounding the GW debate, not with a set of statements presented as dogma.
Ok, I'll bite. You have at least are registered, not some AC.
Let me dissect your post a little, and vary between philosophy and science...
'But Global warming is far from fact...'
Let me first define 'Global warming' : global warming is a theory, supported by the majority of the scientific community.
Central to the theory are the following observations:
- Ice caps and glaciers are becoming smaller.
- The Tree-line is creeping north and upwards.
- The perma frost line is going north.
- The artic and antartic ice-caps are getting smaller
- The Sahel (region below the Sahara) is getting dryer (average annual rain fall).
- year over year averages of weather stations show an increase in average temperature (since 1830).
- year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up.
The theory explains these observations as the result of human activity. Specifically the increase in CO2 and Methane which have been identified as so called 'greenhouse' gasses.
So back to 'But Global warming is far from fact.' What is your statement here, do you deny the observations or do you deny the proposed theory?
Let me assume that you deny the link between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as causes of increasing temperatures. Would you be so kind as to propose an alternative theory that explains these phenomenon? Please use of Occam's razor.
The 'war on drugs' and 'war of terror' are artifacts of American policies, they only live in the US (but with devastating global effects). Global warming is supported by a much larger group of countries world wide, a group which went as far to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty.
'They are a creation by some entity to gain power and take money.'... please be specific, who would benefit and why?
'There are a lot of specious claims about what the truth is, but no one knows for sure.' True, such is the nature of debate. But human discourse is a way to contrast such opposing view points, investigate their supporting evidence and move to a new level in rational discourse. It is called learning. "Eppure si muove," (Galileo)
'There are more than a few studies that endorse global warming. There are just as many (though not as well publicized or funded) that dispute it.'
There are many studies that report on observations supporting an increase in temperature, CO2 concentration, greenhouse gas increase or albedo reduction. There are also many studies that link these observations together into a comprehensive theory named 'Global warming'. There are not many studies that dispute these observations, there are not many studies that dispute the trends presented. There are a few studies that present alternatives to the CO2/Greenhouse gas model of Global warming. Where many studies differ is in their predictions on how bad the situation is, in other words some believe we have already crossed the threshold, others believe it will take many years. None of these latter studies advocate doing nothing.
'There is no proof, but let's pretend.' Here you are plain wrong... go visit a glacier. The debate is NOT on the rising temperature, the debate is if this is a cyclical pattern in the earth's long term climate and what role humanity has.
etc...
'there is evidence to support his position.' Cherry picking goes two ways, you are accusing the leading scientific establishment of cherry picking their way into global warming. Crichton is cherry picking his way as a critic...
Having been to the Columbia ice-fields, Glacier national park, and some more glaciers around the world, I can tell you for a fact. They are retreating. Whatever is heating up the earth is doing so fast and it will have consequences for humanity.
Now I believe that the observations I mentioned above are most comprehensively explained by the theory of global warming that links the concentration of CO2 and Greenhouse gasses to the average temperature of the planet. I also believe that human activity is a major producer of
The solution is not to ban books and films - but to teach students critical thinking, and media analysis skills. Such classes in media literacy and criticism are standard practice in many schools around the world. Why are they so unpopular in the US? Is it because we want people to consume media at face value to perpetuate the media consumption empires? Or is it because we want students to uncritically believe everything that the administration says on TV?
Sheltering students from the real world of opinions in the media is not a smart move. And on the scale of "propaganda," An Inconvenient Truth is pretty mild stuff. Sure it has opinion, and it also has science. But it's pretty clear that the opinion is opinion. Kids probably get worse propaganda from the dairy industry in their nutrition/home economics classes. Or from the IT industry in computer classes.
But why ban this, instead of having a healthy debate about it?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Same as if yu really believe someone is going to pull the trigger on that loaded gun pointed at your head if you eat that twinkie, you'll ignore your craving for junk food.
Yeah, like all of those smokers who know it's bad for them but don't want to stop... or overeaters... or every other person who has an addiction of one type or another.
BTW, as for those "millions of christians doing good" - if someone is doing something good because they're trying to please their god, their actions are worthless, according to the bible.
You've misunderstood or have been misled on this one. Jesus talks a lot about doing good deeds for show in Mark 12, but he also makes it very clear that his followers should demonstrate their love for him by following his teachings.
Of course your last paragraph betrays your true feelings. Look, I believe the earth is getting warmer... the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I, and MANY individuals who are not Christians, aren't convinced that it's a man made problem that is fixable by cutting down on fossil fuel consumption in the US (although I'm also very interested in looking for cleaner safer fuel sources).
You're interesting because you have a particular belief, that man is causing global warming and man must change in order to stop it, and can change enough to actually stop it at this point and you're now going to belittle anyone who disagrees with you and work to push your ideology down their throats.
You don't need to be so biggoted. You could very easily have said... "You know, I don't believe in the Bible as a source for scientific evidence or policy making... so this guys argument means nothing to me and I think it probably doesn't mean much to a lot of other people too... he's going to have to do better."
My final point... trotting this guy out as the example of an expert on alternative theories to global warming or a Christian theologian is equivalent to me citing some space-looney who believes in cosmic rays and alien abductions and that life started on Earth when the aliens created the pyramids as a leading naturalist. It's a strawman argument.
Relativity is "just a theory" as well, but your GPS system would fail totally if both the special and general theories of relativity were not taken into account. Too many laymen think that "theory" means "tentative hypothesis" when in fact many theories are about as well established as any claim about the physical world could possibly be.