Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Nice articles.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    If you admit it isnt scientific you are also admitting it has no place in any science lesson. I couldnt give a toss what loonies want to teach outside the class room, as long as it isnt taught as science its fine with me.
    Since when did that become the topic of this thread?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Since when did that become the topic of this thread?
    The whole purpose of relabelling creationism as ID is to get it into classrooms, whilst it's a little off-topic the schools debate is very important to discussing ID.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    The whole purpose of relabelling creationism as ID is to get it into classrooms, whilst it's a little off-topic the schools debate is very important to discussing ID.
    As far as the UK is concerned, ID is taught in religious studies/philosophy of religion not science.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    The whole purpose of relabelling creationism as ID is to get it into classrooms, whilst it's a little off-topic the schools debate is very important to discussing ID.
    It's not important in the question of whether it's a valid theory, though.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    As far as the UK is concerned, ID is taught in religious studies/philosophy of religion not science.
    Which is fine, creationism was.

    It's not important in the question of whether it's a valid theory, though.
    It has already been agreed that it's not a valid scientific theory, and it's largely irrelevant whether it's any other kinds of valid.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Goodness, I feel like I'm talking to the wall. :rolleyes:

    Validity is dependent upon the falsifiability of a theory. Neither of these theories is falsifiable, and as such they are equally valid.
    The fact that two theories are both unfalsifiable does /not/ mean that they are equally valid. If so, then the theory that there is an invisible and intangible being on Mars, who enjoys skipping and reciting Shakespeare to himself is as valid as the theory that God exists. By your logic, both are unfalsifiable and so both are equally valid.

    You might be a chemist and so be assured of your intellectual superiority, but you're an absolutely awful philosopher.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Actually, none of the three would stand up in US court, because none can be falsified.



    Well, I prefer courtroom validity because it requires much more rigorous attempts to falsify.
    but they did appear in court in the now famous Scopes trial in the United States in 1925...or is that not what you meant?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    but they did appear in court in the now famous Scopes trial in the United States in 1925...or is that not what you meant?
    The theory wasn't the thing brought to trial, but whether it could be taught in schools.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coldfish)
    The fact that two theories are both unfalsifiable does /not/ mean that they are equally valid. If so, then the theory that there is an invisible and intangible being on Mars, who enjoys skipping and reciting Shakespeare to himself is as valid as the theory that God exists. By your logic, both are unfalsifiable and so both are equally valid.
    Take it up with the folks who wrote the FREs.

    You might be a chemist and so be assured of your intellectual superiority, but you're an absolutely awful philosopher.
    Once again, if you read a bit more of the thread, you'd understand what I was getting at.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    The theory wasn't the thing brought to trial, but whether it could be taught in schools.
    But was not part of that case to do with both theories and their validity? As Bryan was put on the stand and conceded a literal interpretation of the bible, that the world was 6000 years old and created in six days, was inf act not possible. As a result i believe he died only a few days later!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    But was not part of that case to do with both theories and their validity? As Bryan was put on the stand and conceded a literal interpretation of the bible, that the world was 6000 years old and created in six days, was inf act not possible. As a result i believe he died only a few days later!
    The trial was actually because the Tennessee legislature had passed the Butler Act, which forbade teaching or using texts that suggested any theory of the origin of man apart from Creationism. Since Scopes used a textbook that had Darwin's theory of evolution in it, he was violating the law. The court was investigating the Butler Act, not Darwin's theory of evolution. Though, it's understandable why many would make this mistake. Between Mencken's reports (humorous as they were) and Darrow's theatrical cross-examination of Bryan (which was deemed irrelevant to the case), the belief that it was the theory being put to trial has transcended the truth of the matter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What exactly is this "legal standard of proof" you are talking about, P_S? In a civil court it's based on the balance of the probabilities; in a criminal court, "beyond reasonable doubt"- a stronger balance of probability. In neither case is there often [nor can there be] any peer reviews or cross checking of hypotheses or- as people found out with supposedly almost infallible tests for explosives in IRA cases- tests of claims for the reliability of the evidence.
    This kind of "proof" is actually at a much lower level that either philosophical, scientific or mathematical concepts of proof and disproof, so, if you accept this standard the whole theory of evolution, scientific or not, which is the agglomeration of evidence that countless species- every species for which there is sufficient evidence and which has been examined- have evolved and are evolving still, is at a much higher level of proof than that which you require.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    What exactly is this "legal standard of proof" you are talking about, P_S? In a civil court it's based on the balance of the probabilities; in a criminal court, "beyond reasonable doubt"- a stronger balance of probability. In neither case is there often [nor can there be] any peer reviews or cross checking of hypotheses or- as people found out with supposedly almost infallible tests for explosives in IRA cases- tests of claims for the reliability of the evidence.
    This kind of "proof" is actually at a much lower level that either philosophical, scientific or mathematical concepts of proof and disproof, so, if you accept this standard the whole theory of evolution, scientific or not, which is the agglomeration of evidence that countless species- every species for which there is sufficient evidence and which has been examined- have evolved and are evolving still, is at a much higher level of proof than that which you require.
    The Federal Rules of Evidence (I'm not sure whether you've got something comparable in the UK) set down the specifics of tests that theories should pass, in addition to other factors, for them to be acceptable as evidence in the courtroom. Additionally, the Daubert ruling (which is also used as a standard for evidence in some states, as it is used at the federal level) gives the judge the discretion to act as a gatekeeper for scientific testimony. Some states still hold the standard of the previous Supreme Court ruling regarding scientific evidence, Frye v. United States (from 1923, a bit more ancient than Daubert in 1993), which uses the principle of general acceptance.

    Just as an aside, I don't know how much time I'll have in the coming weeks to be on here, so if I don't reply to something, or take forever, it's not that I'm dodging.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thaknks- i thought you hadn't noticed, not that you were dodging. These aren't actually genral rules of evidence, but rules on the acceptability of expert evidence. There is also the question of how- and by who- the test are validated.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Thaknks- i thought you hadn't noticed, not that you were dodging. These aren't actually genral rules of evidence, but rules on the acceptability of expert evidence. There is also the question of how- and by who- the test are validated.
    But, how else is a theory going to be introduced, if not presented by an expert?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, in the cases I cited the tests were done by epxerts who had already tested their validity and- it turned out- got it very wrong.
 
 
 

2,213

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.