New Science Standards Approved in Florida

anonymous_echidna writes "Florida has voted to accept the new K-12 science curriculum standards amidst a storm of controversy around the teaching of evolution, which had up until now been the scientific concept that dare not speak its name. There was a compromise made at the last minute, which was to call evolution a 'scientific theory', rather than a fact. While some lament that the change displays the woeful ignorance of science and scientific terminology, the good news is that the new curriculum emphasizes teaching the meaning of scientific terms and the scientific method in earlier grades."

Comments

Florida... aye

[godawful]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6PMhLupcYY4

I saw this guy arguing why evolution shouldn't be taught and i was literally left speechless

Re:That's fair

[KublaiKhan]

I have a hobby where I argue with various fundamentalists, creationists, and the like in order to understand their particular points of view--using them as an evolutionary pressure for my arguments, as it were, to see which ones have an effect.

I've noticed in my various arguments that the chief difficulty is getting them to understand the terminology behind the concepts--they simply do not have the vocabulary necessary to vocalize and understand the concepts in question.

One of those words that is most egregiously misused is "theory"--the "common" form of the word is almost universally understood, but the "scientific" meaning of the word, even when carefully explained, becomes conflated with the common form.

(Other difficulties I've noticed are: that those who do not accept evolutionary theory are convinced that evolution is directed towards some 'goal'; that all mutations are necessarily harmful; an ignorance of introns and other means by which genetic material can be added to a genome--one of the current arguments that crops up is the one about how you can't get more information into a genome by evolutionary means, which is, of course, utter bosh; a misunderstanding of the scientific method; the false notion that science attempts to be the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything rather than a best-fit approximation; and the notion that scientists are trying actively to discourage religion)

Other than teaching the proper meaning of the word 'theory'--which doesn't work very well, frankly; the meaning that they knew first tends to stick no matter how often you teach them the proper one due to recency bias--I'd perhaps recommend a slight change in terminology when speaking of hypotheses that have withstood rigorous testing. Such a change would, of course, have to be accepted by the scientific community as a whole, so it may not be practical--but it's perhaps worth giving some thought to.

I'd almost recommend 'theorem' rather than 'theory', to leech off of the mathematician's meaning, but while that word is appealing for reasons of similarity and having the proper tone, it may not be ideal due to conflation with mathematical proofs.

Re:Science board is trolling?

[drinkypoo]

There are quite a few "theories" that have been taken as fact, such as the concept of "races" in the single human race. Despite the fact that the idea of race is based on viable offspring interbreeding ablity some insist that varitial==race. Go figure.

Race: "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." Species: "Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." funwithBSD: "An individual who needs to buy a dictionary."

Re:That's fair

[yali]

If you don't believe in gravity being a fact, please jump off a 42 story building.

A fact is what you have observed. A theory is an explanation of why it is so.

In the strictest sense, the fact is that you have always (previously) observed that objects fall to the ground. But in order to link that fact to your prediction that he will fall to the ground after jumping off a building, you have to have a theory of gravity that predicts how a novel event (i.e., the grandparent poster jumping off a 42 story building) will unfold in the future.

Put more succintly: "Objects thrown off a building have always fallen" is a statement of fact. "Objects thrown off a building will always fall" is a hypothesis derived from a theory.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Gordonjcp]

If they're going to teach the theory of evolution, they should they should at least teach that it's more than a theory!

Evolution *is* a theory. Perhaps they should also teach what "theory" means.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mhall119]

Actually, there is no theory of gravity yet. Actually there are many theories of gravity. To the best of my knowledge, there is the relativistic theory, a classical quantum mechanical theory, many variations of string theory, and several others like loop quantum gravity. The problem is that there isn't any one theory that can explain the all of the same phenomena.

These all differ from hypotheses because they are more than just a prediction of the outcome of a test, but an explanation for why we should expect that outcome.

Re:Einsteins Theory of Gravity

[mhall119]

G = Einstein's Gravitational constant G, the gravitational constant, was discovered by Newton, not Einstein.

The other main issue is the value of G. 6.67 * 10^-11 is an awful number that Einstein hated. This was one of reasons why he spent the entire rest of his life searching for something better in the form of a Grand Theory of Everything. Unfortunately he never found it. Einstein didn't hate the gravitational constant, he hated his Cosmological Constant, which he only needed because he was trying to create a static universe, which later observations proved was not the case, so it turns out he never needed it in the first place.

This only predicts the attractive force between two bodies (m1, m2), if you try and apply it to three bodies you have to approximate two of the bodies into one. Sometimes this works well but sometimes it falls down. Not at all, you simply run the calculation for A-B, B-C and C-A, then the "net" force on B is "A-B + B-C". You can do this for as many bodies as you wish.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[mhall119]

Cool, but you still haven't proven how a fish can grow lungs without compromising it's current breathing system. I'm not sure what I'm missing. I gave you an example of a fish that can breath air, as well as using gills to extract free oxygen from water. I've proven to you that such an animal is possible, what more do you need?

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[kindbud]

There is no fact behind the Theory of Evolution in relation to the creation of different species.

You are mistaken.

It has been proven that genetic mutations exist, and that they cause illness and deformations, but not that they have the ability to create limbs, wings, lungs, etc. in perfect working order.

You are mistaken.


One thing that I am constantly amazed about is that people implant their own logic into Evolution; DNA does not have an agenda. It does not wake up one day and say "over the next 100 generations, I'm going to grow wings and fly!".

No one says that, except the people who are mistaken about what evolution is, what the theory proposes, and how it is tested. People like the ones you got your mistaken information from.

Charles Darwin wrote....

Something, I am sure. But Charles Darwin is not the last word in evolution or natural selection, anymore than Newton is the last word on gravity. Can you at least update your criticisms to refer to science done in the 20th and 21st centuries? A lot of ground has been covered since Darwin.

It is a HUGE leap from this to saying that "We all came from fish".

No one says that. But fish and humans have a common ancestor, which was not a fish nor was it a human.

It is not correct to look at fossils and assume that one came from another because they look similar.

Of course. And no one does that.

You have some very fuzzy and shadowy ideas about what scientists do, and how they come to the conclusions they do. I suggest you do some reading of works by scientists who do evolution, not any more reading of works by preachers debunking it with folklore and thought experiments.