Caesar, God, and Rendering
Define "fact."
Some may subscribe to "fact" being "knowledge or information based on real occurrences" or perhaps "something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed." In the context of this particular article on schools teaching evolution, the most appropriate definition seems to be one used in the legal system, i.e., "the aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence."
Now you need to define "knowledge." How about we call "knowledge" a "true, justified belief." Pretty reasonable, yes?
Without delving too deeply into the study of knowledge (epistemology for all those who like very specific terms, like me), you have a justification criterion to clear before your proposition can be considered knowledge. Let's face it, I can say that I know that the earth is flat because that is what I believe, but can that really be considered knowledge if it isn't justified?
Right, so justification in 3 levels: beyond a reasonable doubt, high probability, and absolute certainty. Now before you run off screaming "Absolute certainty is the only way to knowledge," stop and consider that for a moment. How many things are you absolutely certain about? Remember that it only takes one instance of the opposite case to prove that your position is completely wrong. Say over the course of 50 years all you see are white swans. Now you're absolutely certain that all swans must be white. Then you travel to a different place and see a black swan.
What's that sound? It's your swan knowledge base melting down. Think things would have been better if you went with high probability or beyond a reasonable doubt? Not quite so much backtracking there, is it?
So that's my brief stint into the philosophy of knowledge. Now on to the Ohio Board of Education.
Basically, they're saying that students should not be taught to seek evidence for and against evolution. That sounds a lot like saying, "Don't question anything that the scientific community, as a whole, considers to be valid." Hello, Copernicus? The Earth isn't the center of the universe? Surely you jest.
I'm not saying that evolution is a bogus theory or anything. Far be it from that. No, I'm railing against the apparent disregard for the scientific method. If you don't question, then how are you to learn?
Well, perhaps this evolution versus intelligent design thing has a different slant to it. Some believe that intelligent design is "religion masquerading as science," and that as such it constitutes a violation of church and state. Separation of church and state? Well, what are we going to do about our money ("In God We Trust" sound familiar?)? What about the Declaration of Independence? "God Bless America?" Should we discard these things because they point to religion as well? When do you draw the line? It seems to me that the position of these individuals is such that religion is only useful following tragedies and the like... but this is something for another time.
Another federal judge ordered stickers be removed from biology textbooks in Atlanta because they said that evolution is a theory. His reasoning? That evolution is fact, not a theory. News for ya, your Honor, evolution is a theory. It has not been proven with absolute certainty, but it is considered the inference to the best possible solution.
Don't believe me? Name three scientific laws, and when I saw "law" I mean incontestable, without a doubt, stake your life on it, fact. Let's see... how about the Law of Gravity and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. I'd include the Fundamental Law of Biology (DNA to RNA to protein), but recent developments may point to an alternate pathway (as in RNA being the conductor).
That's just about it. Everything else is "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "high probability."
Yeah, it's a heated debate, but somehow I think that the reasoning is a bit flawed... As one of the (intelligent) board members said, "[it's]... unfair to deny students the chance to use logic to question a scientific theory."
Damn right it is.
Some may subscribe to "fact" being "knowledge or information based on real occurrences" or perhaps "something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed." In the context of this particular article on schools teaching evolution, the most appropriate definition seems to be one used in the legal system, i.e., "the aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence."
Now you need to define "knowledge." How about we call "knowledge" a "true, justified belief." Pretty reasonable, yes?
Without delving too deeply into the study of knowledge (epistemology for all those who like very specific terms, like me), you have a justification criterion to clear before your proposition can be considered knowledge. Let's face it, I can say that I know that the earth is flat because that is what I believe, but can that really be considered knowledge if it isn't justified?
Right, so justification in 3 levels: beyond a reasonable doubt, high probability, and absolute certainty. Now before you run off screaming "Absolute certainty is the only way to knowledge," stop and consider that for a moment. How many things are you absolutely certain about? Remember that it only takes one instance of the opposite case to prove that your position is completely wrong. Say over the course of 50 years all you see are white swans. Now you're absolutely certain that all swans must be white. Then you travel to a different place and see a black swan.
What's that sound? It's your swan knowledge base melting down. Think things would have been better if you went with high probability or beyond a reasonable doubt? Not quite so much backtracking there, is it?
So that's my brief stint into the philosophy of knowledge. Now on to the Ohio Board of Education.
Basically, they're saying that students should not be taught to seek evidence for and against evolution. That sounds a lot like saying, "Don't question anything that the scientific community, as a whole, considers to be valid." Hello, Copernicus? The Earth isn't the center of the universe? Surely you jest.
I'm not saying that evolution is a bogus theory or anything. Far be it from that. No, I'm railing against the apparent disregard for the scientific method. If you don't question, then how are you to learn?
Well, perhaps this evolution versus intelligent design thing has a different slant to it. Some believe that intelligent design is "religion masquerading as science," and that as such it constitutes a violation of church and state. Separation of church and state? Well, what are we going to do about our money ("In God We Trust" sound familiar?)? What about the Declaration of Independence? "God Bless America?" Should we discard these things because they point to religion as well? When do you draw the line? It seems to me that the position of these individuals is such that religion is only useful following tragedies and the like... but this is something for another time.
Another federal judge ordered stickers be removed from biology textbooks in Atlanta because they said that evolution is a theory. His reasoning? That evolution is fact, not a theory. News for ya, your Honor, evolution is a theory. It has not been proven with absolute certainty, but it is considered the inference to the best possible solution.
Don't believe me? Name three scientific laws, and when I saw "law" I mean incontestable, without a doubt, stake your life on it, fact. Let's see... how about the Law of Gravity and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. I'd include the Fundamental Law of Biology (DNA to RNA to protein), but recent developments may point to an alternate pathway (as in RNA being the conductor).
That's just about it. Everything else is "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "high probability."
Yeah, it's a heated debate, but somehow I think that the reasoning is a bit flawed... As one of the (intelligent) board members said, "[it's]... unfair to deny students the chance to use logic to question a scientific theory."
Damn right it is.