Science Under Siege

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

…

(Grooooooooan...)

That's obvious! As stated in GR, the principle says that, for any point P, a coordinate map can be chosen to be locally inertial. Think of it along the lines of a straight line tangent to a curve. Learn differential geometry before saying GR is faulty.

Egads! I’ve received the dreaded emoticon!

I am familiar with the literature, and, while not a professional physicist, do have (or had – what you don’t use, you lose!) a reasonably good Math education.

The point I was trying to make is not that GR is faulty – which I don’t believe (or truly feel competent to have an opinion on) - but that its equivalency principle is much less intuitive and compelling than SR’s.

Back in my teaching days, I was delighted at the number of non-science majors who were able, even with a sub-standard grasp of algebra, to quickly comprehend the fundamentals of SR. While many could also follow the logic of GR, it seemed to lack SR’s capacity for provoking an “ah-ha” of intuitive comprehension. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that the unaccelerated inertial frame of SR’s equivalency principle is more natural and intuitive than the point-localized one required by GR.

Alas, I can think of no way to make GR more palatable to the casual science student. Analogies involving marbles, bowling balls, and rubber sheets work fairly well to describe its conclusions, but its derivation from first principles lacks the elegant, geometric simplicity or SR’s.

[Turtle]

___One of my obsessions in years past manifested in reading Ancient Greelk literature, history, & biographies. In my current pursuit of Diogenes, I have disposed of any books & jounrals I owned on the subject, so I refer to my general impressions.
___One of the Ancient Greek dead guys put forward the observation that when things get tough, people turn to gods & spells & prayers for their comfort. It is not different today. Science is under siege because it is dificult & it is only relatively difficult because so many in the US live lives of relative ease.
___Any suitably high technology appears as magic (forget who said that?). Few people these days - let alone students - have the ability to give even a rudimentary explanation of radio for example. Whether you understand it or not doesn't affect its working in the least. Magic. TV, computers, cell phones, magnetic bank cards...magic.
___So magic works without understanding it, god stuff is magic, therefore it must work without understanding it. Let us pray.
___Science was under siege in Diogenes time & remains so now. Ignorance is the deadliest sin.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by CraigD

The point I was trying to make is not that GR is faulty – which I don’t believe (or truly feel competent to have an opinion on) - but that its equivalency principle is much less intuitive and compelling than SR’s.

That wasn't the impression I got from your post.

Originally Posted by CraigD

Alas, I can think of no way to make GR more palatable to the casual science student. Analogies involving marbles, bowling balls, and rubber sheets work fairly well to describe its conclusions, but its derivation from first principles lacks the elegant, geometric simplicity or SR’s.

The way to teach GR is with differential geometry, not with marbles and rubber sheets. If you don't find that it has an "elegant, geometric simplicity" like SR then I'm not sure you have as much familiarity as you say. The steps from Galileo-Newton to both SR and GR are essentially geometrical and elegantly simple. Once you understand the non-euclidean geometry and the definition of differentiable manifold.

IMHO the troubles of most people in understanding relativity lie in the ways it is usually taught and in historic misconceptions.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Actually what I'm really asking is what we *do* about it. To a certain extent, some scientists are at fault too: the latest Discover mag has an article on Richard Dawkins in which even he admits that his religion-hostile, "Darwin's Rottweiler" image is counterproductive in convincing folks of the issues described above. The downside of not doing something about it is that we drift into a sort of latter day dark ages where any opinion can be justified as scientific because no one is defending science. In the Intelligent design debate, I hear too many defenders simply say "its wrong, and it doesn't belong in schools" instead of getting straight to the core of the matter that it is not a scientific idea at all, and trying to clarify why. Its kinda like saying "just say no", or "don't worry your little heads about it, just believe us experts". On the public policy side, the pro-business community has been very busy paying researchers to come up with any study at all, biased or not, that proves the points that maximize their profits, with studies that may not falsify data, but certainly skirt the issues of peer review.

I'm suggesting that we do need to do something "Lest Darkness Fall" (that's a great book!), and the question is, what do we do?

Cheers,
Buffy

So I got one o' them there sieges active right here in River City, namely the ol' Earth's core is hydrogen business again and how the stupid dogmatic scientists think it's iron. While my doggish approach to defending this attack on science is netting little headway, neither are the patient cogent scientific explanations. The question is still, what do we do?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Turtle

So I got one o' them there sieges active right here in River City, namely the ol' Earth's core is hydrogen business again and how the stupid dogmatic scientists think it's iron. While my doggish approach to defending this attack on science is netting little headway, neither are the patient cogent scientific explanations. The question is still, what do we do?

IMHO, the answer’s pretty simple: stick with the cogent scientific explanations. Style-wise, doggish, wonder-struck (eg: Sagan), pedagogic (as one would speaking to a slow-learning child), and a host of others work well, though some styles – sarcastic, accusatory, etc. – can undermine the cogent scientific goodness at the heart of your demon-haunted darkness repelling efforts.

It’s essential to understand and accept, however, that even the best efforts will fail to sway many “true believer”. Defending science and reason is not identical to persuading the unscientific and irrational to embrace them, the measure of successful defense not the ruin of those who bear the ideas against which one is defending, and ceasing to beat a dead horse not a sign of lack of determination.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CraigD

IMHO, the answer’s pretty simple: stick with the cogent scientific explanations. Style-wise, doggish, wonder-struck (eg: Sagan), pedagogic (as one would speaking to a slow-learning child), and a host of others work well, though some styles – sarcastic, accusatory, etc. – can undermine the cogent scientific goodness at the heart of your demon-haunted darkness repelling efforts.

It’s essential to understand and accept, however, that even the best efforts will fail to sway many “true believer”. Defending science and reason is not identical to persuading the unscientific and irrational to embrace them, the measure of successful defense not the ruin of those who bear the ideas against which one is defending, and ceasing to beat a dead horse not a sign of lack of determination.

Gotta love your pragmatism C-Man. As you allow that some growling only "can" undermine cogency, and so must needs not necessarily undermine it, then can we allow that in some incidences it is an adjunct? I mean if no one barks a warning when the smell of believer is in the air, how will everyone know to go with the talking-to-a-slow-child mode? Woof!!

Add to all these generalities the belly-load of communication the web has allowed such as never has occured in our history, and you have the grounds for needing to establish some new protocols. Specifically since we are talking here about the hydrogen core business, well yeah, I'm talking about it , it seems that we have some room to go with deciding just how long the horse's corpse should be left around on our property as an invitation to beatage. I recall Craig that you mentioned the baloney index or some such elsewhere and I have a suspicion this hydrogen core business aint up to snuff by that measure.

Anyway, no rest for the wicked and the righteous don't need it so back to the salt mines or some other such mixed metaphors as strikes everyones' fancies.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Actually what I'm really asking is what we *do* about it. To a certain extent, some scientists are at fault too: the latest Discover mag has an article on Richard Dawkins in which even he admits that his religion-hostile, "Darwin's Rottweiler" image is counterproductive in convincing folks of the issues described above.

I'm suggesting that we do need to do something "Lest Darkness Fall" (that's a great book!), and the question is, what do we do?

IMO, what to do is to maintain respect and honor. For sure maintain wits and principles, but not if that will cost respect and honor. So, invite ID'ers (and whomever) into the proverbial room, welcome them and when discussion time is over thank them for their contributions. Keep the door open.

IMO, it's that simple. Oh, and anywhere you see "them" in above paragraph, be willing to replace it with "us" and you'll stay one step ahead.

From someone else on this thread, I was getting gist of another important point. Science itself isn't under siege. The scientific method is going to be okay, even if certain theories and isms are shot down and considered wrong for our kids.

It's the dogma that is being shaken from science. IMO, that's a very good thing. Those who think materialism and empiricism are the end all and be all of validity and fact are receiving an overdue wakeup call. I'm not saying those paradigms are false, but would argue they are belief systems that are tinged with own versions of psuedo-scientific hypothesis and conclusions.

I am one who is spiritual of the New Agey type, but this doesn't mean I abandon my (earthly) senses. I also feel within me high appreciation for science, within Reason. Without balance of spirituality / philosophy (both historical basis of scientific methodology), I think scientific practice, in the hands of some, would run amok (even more than it sometimes appears to).

I'm one who kinda sorta subscribes to Intelligent Design. But not from orthodox Christian perspective. No siree bob. I'm still formulating my hypothesis and admittedly, this is around 64th on my list of life's priorities. But in my worldview, scientific methodology is, how you say, manifestation of Intelligent Designer's consciousness within known universe. For me, Creator isn't out there, over yonder. Creator is within All, still manifesting Universe as we know it. For me scientific methodology and practice is "proof" of ID.

I don't expect my uncommon perspective on ID to be taught equally side by side with prevailing theories of evolution (and even Creation), but I'll let you in on a little secret that apparently R. Dawkins is starting to realize. Keep telling me that my ideas have no basis for acceptance in any rational discussion and has no place in scientific education, and guess what, it motivates me to push that much more, in ways that are no longer about openness and honoring, and are instead all about dogma and righteousness.

It can be both Evolution and Creation,
unless you are personally threatened by the way things Are.

Namaste,
Jway

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I'm suggesting that we do need to do something "Lest Darkness Fall" (that's a great book!), and the question is, what do we do?

The science community needs to define the entire taxonomy of human knowledge for public use - you know, re-do the Dewey Decimal Classification system.