Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nat. Center for Sci. Edu)   Percent of high school biology teachers teaching evolution as settled science goes from 51% to 67% from 2007 to 2019. What the fark is wrong with 33% of biology teachers?   (ncse.ngo) divider line
    More: Murica, Education, Teacher, NCSE's deputy director Glenn Branch, results of the recent NCSE, Penn State, state science standards, School, appropriate treatment of evolution  
•       •       •

298 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 07 Jul 2020 at 7:07 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



60 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-07-07 4:31:09 PM  

Khellendros: jjorsett: Any time I see the words, "Settled science", I know I'm dealing with people who are anti-science. When you've decided that an issue is closed because we know for a certainty that it's one way, it's not science any more, it's belief and dogma.

Then you don't know what is meant by "settled science".

Evolution (and more specifically the mechanism called natural selection) is "settled science" because every piece of collected physical evidence we have points to it being true.  There isn't a collection of evidence that contradicts it.   And the more we learn, the more solid that assertion becomes.  There isn't a single hypothesis opposing it with any evidence whatsoever.  Period.

This sits in opposition to something like Newtonian understandings of motion and gravity, or the Bohr model of the atom.  While they stood for a time, there were a lot of holes and natural phenomena that didn't add up under those models, even when they were first proposed.  They were later replaced with other models in the 1900s, and while they are far better than what came before, are still incomplete and incompatible with various physical realities we encounter.


Technically, we still use Newtonian physics for stuff.  It holds up well until you start getting into the really edge cases, and it makes the math easier.
 
2020-07-07 10:04:34 PM  

006andahalf: Benjimin_Dover: The other 33% are better teachers and know that science is never "settled?"

Opposition on the basis of pedantry to using the word 'settled' as shorthand for 'an abundance of evidence so overwhelming to render competing theories fanciful' in order to challenge the actual premise that evolution's evidence is so overwhelmingly more plausible and demonstrable than other explanations is the behavior of a fundamentally dishonest person.


Well, at one point in time, it was settled science that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Only science deniers use the term.
 
2020-07-07 10:37:41 PM  
Benjimin_Dover:

Well, at one point in time, it was settled science that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.
I believe I already addressed this nonsense from you just a few posts higher.  But lets do it again.
1.  It was once BELIEVED that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.  However that has NOTHING to do with science.
2.The idea that only science deniers would say "the science is settled" is patently false.  On the contrary... the only people I've seen take issue with that are themselves science deniers - who want to pretend and/or appear as though they respect science.

This thread is no exception.  You are no exception.  You don't respect science.  You merely respect the abstract idea of "science" as you imagine it to be, but resent that the body of evidence - derived from following the scientific method - could possibly indicate that you yourself are mistaken about the things you believe.  Saying "the science is never settled" is you giving yourself the wiggle room to continue believing as you prefer rather than as the overwhelming evidence points.  If you actually respected science, you'd adjust your views to match the evidence as it stands.
 
2020-07-07 10:51:12 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: 006andahalf: Benjimin_Dover: The other 33% are better teachers and know that science is never "settled?"

Opposition on the basis of pedantry to using the word 'settled' as shorthand for 'an abundance of evidence so overwhelming to render competing theories fanciful' in order to challenge the actual premise that evolution's evidence is so overwhelmingly more plausible and demonstrable than other explanations is the behavior of a fundamentally dishonest person.

Well, at one point in time, it was settled science that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Only science deniers use the term.


That's BS and you ought to know it.  It's transparent you come up with these contortions to undermine a version of reality that opposes whatever it is your belief system requires.
 
2020-07-07 10:56:14 PM  

bk3k: Benjimin_Dover:

Well, at one point in time, it was settled science that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.
I believe I already addressed this nonsense from you just a few posts higher.  But lets do it again.
1.  It was once BELIEVED that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.  However that has NOTHING to do with science.
2.The idea that only science deniers would say "the science is settled" is patently false.  On the contrary... the only people I've seen take issue with that are themselves science deniers - who want to pretend and/or appear as though they respect science.

This thread is no exception.  You are no exception.  You don't respect science.  You merely respect the abstract idea of "science" as you imagine it to be, but resent that the body of evidence - derived from following the scientific method - could possibly indicate that you yourself are mistaken about the things you believe.  Saying "the science is never settled" is you giving yourself the wiggle room to continue believing as you prefer rather than as the overwhelming evidence points.  If you actually respected science, you'd adjust your views to match the evidence as it stands.


I respect science enough to know that it is never settled and is open to refinement as new data is observed. Your position seems to be that science is always settled until it's not and then it's settled again to await the next time that it's not. To you and people who believe as you do, the term "settled science" just means the current state. It's lazy at best and at worst, it gives you the wiggle room to deny any new evidence that comes along that contradicts what has already been settled.
 
2020-07-07 11:12:13 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: bk3k: Benjimin_Dover:

Well, at one point in time, it was settled science that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.
I believe I already addressed this nonsense from you just a few posts higher.  But lets do it again.
1.  It was once BELIEVED that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.  However that has NOTHING to do with science.
2.The idea that only science deniers would say "the science is settled" is patently false.  On the contrary... the only people I've seen take issue with that are themselves science deniers - who want to pretend and/or appear as though they respect science.

This thread is no exception.  You are no exception.  You don't respect science.  You merely respect the abstract idea of "science" as you imagine it to be, but resent that the body of evidence - derived from following the scientific method - could possibly indicate that you yourself are mistaken about the things you believe.  Saying "the science is never settled" is you giving yourself the wiggle room to continue believing as you prefer rather than as the overwhelming evidence points.  If you actually respected science, you'd adjust your views to match the evidence as it stands.

I respect science enough to know that it is never settled and is open to refinement as new data is observed. Your position seems to be that science is always settled until it's not and then it's settled again to await the next time that it's not. To you and people who believe as you do, the term "settled science" just means the current state. It's lazy at best and at worst, it gives you the wiggle room to deny any new evidence that comes along that contradicts what has already been settled.


I'm just going to repeat what I already replied to you - for which you had no reply.

bk3k: You are quite mistaken. Science is of course always open to overturning existing beliefs in light of newer, stronger evidence to the contrary. However there are many things for which we can have high confidence that they aren't going to be overturned by newer, stronger contradictory evidence. Things that are very well studied. Lets say biology... a human will die if they loose too much blood (before being able to replenish it over time). That's settled biology right there. That's a fact. It isn't dogma because if you can provide a stronger body of evidence that a human can live without blood, we'd all accept that. There are plenty of things just like that.

The fact that gravity exist is settled science. Some of the finer details themselves are still being studied, but yes there is a very solid body of consistent evidence that gravity exists, and it is very unlikely to be overturned because it is very unlikely you'll find stronger evidence to the contrary. Biological evolution falls under this category. That is settled science. Some of the finer details are still open for study, but it most certainly happened. That is what a very abundant amount of consistent evidence tells us.

Science can absolutely be settled because we live in a work where things can be observed. Hypothesis can be tested and re-tested again for verification (there will be your peers looking over your work trying to find flaws in your methods and invalidate your results). To say "the science is never settled" is as silly as to say "the math is never settled".


So then... can you accept that "a human loosing too much blood will die" is settled (biology) science?  Because it is.  Because that is where ALL the evidence points, and the evidence is quite strong.  That is why the matter is settled.  Can you deny this? If you cannot, then you need to accept that some things really are settled, and for good reason.

It is very unlikely that contrary evidence exists - let along contrary evidence stronger than the existing body of evidence - but if it ever did exist, we'd adjust our beliefs.  Furthermore this is the strength of science, not a weakness.  You would like to paint scientists being mistaken about this or that in the past as evidence we shouldn't trust them.  However the fact that they now believe otherwise - in light of new evidence - is evidence in favor of them.  It is a strength of science to accept previous beliefs are wrong, not a weakness.
 
2020-07-08 8:02:09 AM  

bk3k: So then... can you accept that "a human loosing too much blood will die" is settled (biology) science?


I will accept that current science shows something. I will also accept that it will likely not change. I will not accept that it is settled.

Hell, even in your example above, it isn't settled. We have had at least one Fark thread on articles about artificial materials being developed that can carry oxygen like red cells can. So, your "settled science" may not be so settled in the near future if the result is that an ambulance pulls up to somebody bleeding out and pumps something into them after stopping the bleeding to take the place of most of the blood they previously had.

Maybe not you, but most people who use the term settled are those that desperately need something to remain the way it is and will shout down anybody, including scientists, who bring forth anything that threatens that. Because of that, the term needs to go away. Especially since we have no shortage of politicians who will throw it around to scare the average Joe into coughing up some money for their pet projects.
 
2020-07-08 9:33:39 AM  

dittybopper: Technically, we still use Newtonian physics for stuff. It holds up well until you start getting into the really edge cases, and it makes the math easier.


We do, because it's a model that has some use even though we know it's wrong.  Those "edge cases" are not insignificant.  Most of the matter and energy in the universe exists at those edge cases.  We continue to teach Newtonian mechanics because it's useful on a narrow macro scale that humans tend to operate in.  We also continue to teach the Bohr atom, which was the accepted model for less than 30 years, and we generally knew it wasn't correct the moment it was published.

They're useful aids to engineering and invention, because we don't tend to do civil or mechanical engineering at nanoscale, nor using mass that appreciably bends lights, and the Bohr atom gives us a functional look into bonding up through about the first full year of college chemistry.
 
2020-07-08 9:36:28 AM  

Benjimin_Dover: Maybe not you, but most people who use the term settled are those that desperately need something to remain the way it is and will shout down anybody, including scientists, who bring forth anything that threatens that.


Most people who use the term "settled science" are scientists.  When you have 100% of a field's evidence indicating that a theory is correct, and literally zero evidence that any other model is right, it's called "settled" because there's no controversy.

Settled doesn't mean incontrovertibly correct for all time with no chance to change it, it means there's no longer an argument/debate to settle.
 
2020-07-08 5:36:24 PM  

kukukupo: Shakin_Haitian: One of the reasons for low teacher pay is that it makes it easier to justify hiring unqualified evangelicals. Evangelicals also push their daughters hard to become teachers.

Have you tried getting a teaching job without credentials?  It isn't possible anymore in nearly all cases.


I should have used the words under qualified. My wife got her undergrad in education and the amount of students who talked about using the classroom to teach about jaysus was shockingly high.

Most people who aren't super dedicated to helping others take one look at teacher salaries and nope the fark out of there. The rest are barely educated enough to get a cert evangelicals.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was above 40% of them were jaysus people.
 
Displayed 10 of 60 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.