Slashdot Log In
Global Warming Only a Theory, Says School Board
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jan 12, 2007 07:56 PM
from the i'd-think-seattle-would-know-about-rain dept.
from the i'd-think-seattle-would-know-about-rain dept.
BendingSpoons writes "A Seattle school board has placed a moratorium on screenings of 'An Inconvenient Truth', having found its subject matter too controversial. Echoing the language of the evolution debate, the school board found that students must be told that global warming is only a theory and presented with an opposing viewpoint. The ban was prompted by the complaints of a parent: '"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A *Puget Sound* school board. NOT Seattle! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A *Puget Sound* school board. NOT Seattle! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's because... (Score:5, Funny)
Well.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
a better explination is here [realclimate.org]
This is myth is keept alive by the likes of George Will (a fairly respectable conservative on most other topics) and that "expert" Michael Crichton. The only thing close was the discovery in the 1970's of teperature variations with a periodicity of 20000 years. Well below the time scale of anthropogenic warming (on order of decades to 100s of years.)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, like all of those smokers who know it's bad for them but don't want to stop... or overeaters... or every other person who has an addiction of one type or another.
BTW, as for those "millions of christians doing good" - if someone is doing something good because they're trying to please their god, their actions are worthless, according to the bible.
You've misunderstood or have been misled on this one. Jesus talks a lot about doing good deeds for show in Mark 12, but he also makes it very clear that his followers should demonstrate their love for him by following his teachings.
Of course your last paragraph betrays your true feelings. Look, I believe the earth is getting warmer... the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I, and MANY individuals who are not Christians, aren't convinced that it's a man made problem that is fixable by cutting down on fossil fuel consumption in the US (although I'm also very interested in looking for cleaner safer fuel sources).
You're interesting because you have a particular belief, that man is causing global warming and man must change in order to stop it, and can change enough to actually stop it at this point and you're now going to belittle anyone who disagrees with you and work to push your ideology down their throats.
You don't need to be so biggoted. You could very easily have said... "You know, I don't believe in the Bible as a source for scientific evidence or policy making... so this guys argument means nothing to me and I think it probably doesn't mean much to a lot of other people too... he's going to have to do better."
My final point... trotting this guy out as the example of an expert on alternative theories to global warming or a Christian theologian is equivalent to me citing some space-looney who believes in cosmic rays and alien abductions and that life started on Earth when the aliens created the pyramids as a leading naturalist. It's a strawman argument.
catch up (Score:5, Funny)
The fundamentalist Christians are out breeding the rest of us. We must catch up.
Re:catch up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:catch up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:catch up (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, that's what happens when they don't teach about condoms in schools!
+1 Scary (Score:5, Informative)
Since most Slashdotters are US'ian, compare this with the mandatory public-school "sex" "education" classes you took. Then compare statistics like "teen pregnancy" and "age that kids start having sex". In countries with comprehensive sex education, there is less teen pregnancy, and kids start having sex later[1].
[1] "The Naked Truth About Sex", Dr. Roger W. Libby (2006)
Re:catch up (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, that's almost Pascal's Wager!
Re:Obvious ad-hominem on the person who protested. (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is not to ban books and films - but to teach students critical thinking, and media analysis skills. Such classes in media literacy and criticism are standard practice in many schools around the world. Why are they so unpopular in the US? Is it because we want people to consume media at face value to perpetuate the media consumption empires? Or is it because we want students to uncritically believe everything that the administration says on TV?
Sheltering students from the real world of opinions in the media is not a smart move. And on the scale of "propaganda," An Inconvenient Truth is pretty mild stuff. Sure it has opinion, and it also has science. But it's pretty clear that the opinion is opinion. Kids probably get worse propaganda from the dairy industry in their nutrition/home economics classes. Or from the IT industry in computer classes.
But why ban this, instead of having a healthy debate about it?
What Do Other Sources Say? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what do other opposing sources say?
The Koran?
Hindu beliefs?
Various Native (North and South) American legends?
Buddhist Teachings?
If you are going to provide one opposing viewpoint, you better be ready to provide many others as well.
Pirates! (Score:5, Funny)
Let him put his money where his mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words ...
Re:Let him put his money where his mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you arguing that if a school history course talks about the Holocaust, that they also be required to give time to the idea that the Holocaust never occurred and is a big Jewish conspiracy?
Global warming is not a controversial issue. There are an extreme minority of groups that would like to convince the public otherwise.
The fact that the parents in question are religious fanatics is troubling enough in and of itself, but then you have this comment:
Well, what if America really is creating the rotten ruin of the world?
Re:Let him put his money where his mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let him put his money where his mouth is (Score:5, Informative)
Well, there are 6236 verses in Quran and according to one website there are 337 verses with violent passages. The article has an excellent comparision of the violent passges in both bible and quran. Bible has 853 violent passages. Now does that make it more violent than Quran? If you do a percentage comparison then Bible has 2.74% violent passages and Quran has 5.4%.
Christianity
"When your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying 'Let us go and serve other gods,' . . . you shall kill him, your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God. . . " (Deuteronomy 13: 6-10)
My personal favorite... (first read when I did a paper on organized religion back in college)
"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But spare for yourselves all virgin maidens" (Numbers 31:17-18).
Islam
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 9:5)
Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Judism
Jews are Divine, Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews, Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile. (Islam has this too- as far as I know Christianity doesn't so you can trust them a bit more at their word).
(There is some distinction between the talmud and the torah that I miss here tho).
It goes on for many other religions.
They're all wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Washington, Gore, the whole lot. We all know that the truth about both the age of the earth and cause of global warming lies in the truth as told by His Noodleness on high.
Ramen.
Theories (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I might have sat here and ranted and raved about how I watched material in high school or grade school on physics or nature programs that could have been just as theoretical as An Inconvenient Truth but I'm not going to. Why? Well, there were two points in the movie that I didn't care for. One was the election campaign. The other was Gore's son's near death experience. These are political and emotional issues. They do not belong in science nor do they belong being taught in a classroom setting that is centered on science. Politics class? Psychology class? Maybe. But I would really wish he had stuck to the facts and used that valuable time that he had my undivided attention to counter some arguments I've heard against his movie.
I have tried to keep an open mind about this issue for both sides. Gore's movie certainly swayed me, I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that. The fact is that it's a political issue no matter how much science is involved. If parents don't want it taught to their children, that's fine. I've bought the movie twice (once for me, once for my sister), the word will get out someway somehow.
Re:Theories (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, when you're arguing with someone that thinks the Earth is 14,000 years old, they're completely oblivious to anything called evidence. Your evidence is wrong, because the Holy Book says I'm right. QED. Then they'll throw in your basic FUD about the unenlightened mind, not seeing the truth and so you can quote scientific evidence by the metric ton, and it will not make any difference at all.
People can hear all the evidence they want, but without religion their life would be emptier. There's noone to watch over you, there's no higher purpose, there's no afterlife, humans are just a slightly more advanced animal, there's noone to pray to, there's noone to right injustices, noone to thank or beg for help - it's all rolls of a dice and you stand alone. Religion is adults' version of an imaginary friend.
Let me play along, and assume ex facto that there is a god (as in any, Jesus' dad, Allah, Jahve, Jehova etc.) That still means at least 2/3rd of the world's population are worshipping a false god (depending on who's right). Let's also assume he's very tolerant of other religions, none of that "you shall have no other gods before me" but clearly worshipping the wrong god shouldn't "work". Then how come every religion seems to "work" for their worshippers? Because they create it themselves, their imaginary friend. Either that, or you have those who claim they're all the same by which I can only conclude that god is schizophrenic, given the number of conflicting teachings.
I think all evidence suggest religious people are wrong, particularly when they try to contradict science like this. And even if one creation myth is right, most of them have to be wrong. However, clearly it is everyone else that is wrong...
Re:Theories (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me dissect your post a little, and vary between philosophy and science...
'But Global warming is far from fact...'
Let me first define 'Global warming' : global warming is a theory, supported by the majority of the scientific community.
Central to the theory are the following observations:
- Ice caps and glaciers are becoming smaller.
- The Tree-line is creeping north and upwards.
- The perma frost line is going north.
- The artic and antartic ice-caps are getting smaller
- The Sahel (region below the Sahara) is getting dryer (average annual rain fall).
- year over year averages of weather stations show an increase in average temperature (since 1830).
- year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up.
The theory explains these observations as the result of human activity. Specifically the increase in CO2 and Methane which have been identified as so called 'greenhouse' gasses.
So back to 'But Global warming is far from fact.' What is your statement here, do you deny the observations or do you deny the proposed theory?
Let me assume that you deny the link between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as causes of increasing temperatures. Would you be so kind as to propose an alternative theory that explains these phenomenon? Please use of Occam's razor.
The 'war on drugs' and 'war of terror' are artifacts of American policies, they only live in the US (but with devastating global effects). Global warming is supported by a much larger group of countries world wide, a group which went as far to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty.
'They are a creation by some entity to gain power and take money.'... please be specific, who would benefit and why?
'There are a lot of specious claims about what the truth is, but no one knows for sure.' True, such is the nature of debate. But human discourse is a way to contrast such opposing view points, investigate their supporting evidence and move to a new level in rational discourse. It is called learning. "Eppure si muove," (Galileo)
'There are more than a few studies that endorse global warming. There are just as many (though not as well publicized or funded) that dispute it.'
There are many studies that report on observations supporting an increase in temperature, CO2 concentration, greenhouse gas increase or albedo reduction. There are also many studies that link these observations together into a comprehensive theory named 'Global warming'. There are not many studies that dispute these observations, there are not many studies that dispute the trends presented. There are a few studies that present alternatives to the CO2/Greenhouse gas model of Global warming. Where many studies differ is in their predictions on how bad the situation is, in other words some believe we have already crossed the threshold, others believe it will take many years. None of these latter studies advocate doing nothing.
'There is no proof, but let's pretend.' Here you are plain wrong... go visit a glacier. The debate is NOT on the rising temperature, the debate is if this is a cyclical pattern in the earth's long term climate and what role humanity has.
etc...
'there is evidence to support his position.' Cherry picking goes two ways, you are accusing the leading scientific establishment of cherry picking their way into global warming. Crichton is cherry picking his way as a critic...
Having been to the Columbia ice-fields, Glacier national park, and some more glaciers around the world, I can tell you for a fact. They are retreating. Whatever is heating up the earth is doing so fast and it will have consequences for humanity.
Now I believe that the observations I mentioned above are most comprehensively explained by the theory of global warming that links the concentration of CO2 and Greenhouse gasses to the average temperature of the planet. I also believe that human activity is a major producer of
I laughed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I laughed (Score:5, Insightful)
Burn baby, burn (Score:5, Funny)
Let them debate (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be a shame for us to simply demand that the school board decide that global warming is the truth, and miss a great teaching opportunity. I hope we don't do that.
No, don't let them "debate!" (Score:5, Interesting)
Debating the issues only works after people have been taught to think critically, and the fundamental problem with these fundamentalists is that they're trying to prevent that from happening in the first place.
The problem isn't in saying that "global warming is only a theory;" the problem is elevating the words of the Bible to the same status. Whatever the Bible says is not a theory no matter how much someone might believe in it, because it's not scientific.
Let me put it this way: the whole point of science is to teach skepticism, systematic investigation, and logic. When these assholes try to tell kids that the Bible has the same status as scientific theories, they're making a direct attack on those principles. Skepticism is not faith, investigation is not dogma, and logic is not irrationality, yet these people are trying to damage the children by brainwashing them into confusing the two!
Umm.. Yeah.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, condoms do belong in schools. Safe sex is important, and they're having sex anyway. Anyone who thinks differently is probably an idiot. 90% of Americans have pre-maritial sex (link [cbsnews.com]) seems pretty damn important.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure Al Gore was a professor at Columbia for a time (visiting I know..) and that he's smarter than the idiot who seriously believes the earth is a few thousand years old.
New Meme? (Score:5, Funny)
Use in the following way:
"X doesn't belong in Y, and neither does Al Gore."
Examples:
"Cheese don't belong in hot dogs, and neither does Al Gore."
"Riker doesn't belong in the captain's chair, and neither does Al Gore."
*Note that verb tense can be changed at the leisure of the poster.
Here's to hoping that this one spreads better than the "Except in Nebraska" one of Steve Ballmer fame.
Email reply from the Federal Way school (Score:5, Informative)
you the quickest reply possible because your concerns about what we did
are important. I write this intending to express my own views and not the
views of other board members. I will not be replying to your replies.
Some of the media has not reported this matter accurately and I wanted to
make sure the issues and our decision were clear to you. Feel free to
share this with others who are concerned.
1. We did not make the decision based upon Mr. Hardison's religious or
other beliefs. The decision was made because a teacher was going to show
the movie and it did not appear she was following policy. It turned out
that she was not following policy. There was also an offer last week by
the proponents of the movie to give 50,000 copies to teachers across the
country to use as curriculum, which would have increased the chance that
the movie would be used. There was more than one complaint/concern
expressed about this issue based upon that alone.
2. We did not ban or censor the movie and have no intent to do so.
Teachers can use it as they see fit if they follow policy on movies and
controversial issues, but because there was some misunderstanding on the
policy we asked that the Superintendent be involved in making sure policy
was being followed. One of our high schools has already used the movie.
The students were asked to take a side, research the issues, and then
debate the issues from that standpoint. What they did goes above and
beyond the policy in my opinion.
3. We are not banning the teaching of global warming.
4. The debate on global warming is crucial to society and limiting the
debate to only one side's view of the facts and science would not be good
for anyone even if they believe the debate is over.
5. Our policies are designed to make sure that the door is open for more
debate on issues, not less, but it does not mean as some allege that any
wacko theory can be taught in our schools.
6. The decision was made upon existing policy. It was not based on
anyone's direct belief regarding politics, science, religion, or when the
earth was formed or when it will end.
7. Policy 2331 and 2331P is intended to prevent one-sided views of
controversial issues.
8. There was more than one complaint/concern expressed about this issue.
9. The policy should be equally enforced regardless of what side of the
spectrum any controversial issue falls upon. This protects the integrity
of the education process. We would have made the same decision if the
movie was about the Iraq war or some other issue and was narrated by
George W. Bush or some other partisan, even if the proponents felt the
debate was over on the topic they were presenting.
10. Using a partisan to present issues affecting contested public policy
matters makes it controversial per se. The media attention to our
decision is also evidence of the controversial nature of this film.
11. Science and politics have been merged on this issue by persons beyond
our control. The political aspect of this is what makes it the most
controversial, especially when a political partisan makes the
presentation. With that in mind, there are many other ways to teach
global warming instead of using a feature film by a political partisan
(see links below from NOAA and NASA that have references to skeptics), but
despite that we did not vote to "ban" the movie even though we could have.
We also had the power to compel specific sources be used instead of the
movie and did not do that either. Some have raised the issue of us not
watching the movie first, but we did not ban the movie or that would have
been crucial. We did feel it was controversial based upon the above
reasons which is all we needed to know based upon our policy.
12. On the issue of how final the debate is, Galileo and other out of the
box thinkers com
yet he's still taken seriously... (Score:5, Interesting)
...yet despite that nonsense, a school board kowtowed to his demands. That has a powerful message: the toughest argument to fight is an invalid one, especially in front of an uneducated audience.
You used one yourself, in fact- you engaged in ad hominem. Maybe he is a hick; it doesn't affect the validity of his argument, which can be dismissed on other grounds (example: one is science, the other is a belief system.) It's no different than saying "well, that pro-evolution scientist is GAY!"
Furthermore, the article summary and TFA both help perpetuate the myth that evolution and global warming are theories. They're not. They're proven fact- and one of the reasons An Inconvenient Truth is so unpopular with those who don't "believe" in global warming is because it step-by-step, methodically destroys every argument they've used against global warming. Evolution is also proven fact based on not just a decade or two of research, but more than a century and a half of research.
Re:please look up "ad hominem" (Score:5, Insightful)
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") is a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument."
Any time your retort's subject matter is your opponent in the debate, that is ad hominem.
Ahhh, but in this case, it wasn't the person that was being attacked. It was a filter that that person had chosen to apply to their perception with demonstrable effects on his ability to draw logical conclusions *in certain situations* which was being attacked.
His stated belief that the earth is 14,000 years old demonstrates this filter applied to his ability to deal with many sciences such as geology, paleontology, etc.
Therefore, his chosen belief system does have a bearing "on his own ability to objectively evaluate the evidence concerning global warming," as the OP said, since that evidence is science-based as well.
That's a perfectly valid argument.
Re:A Teachable Moment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoonfeeding them the answer and expecting them to swallow it without thinking isn't teaching, it's brainwashing. Even if you're brainwashing with correct information, it's still brainwashing.
A resonable science class wouldn't just tell students that oxygen is necessary for a candle to burn, but would allow the students to experiment to "prove" it to themselves, to observe the conditions that drove someone else to that conclusion years ago.
If you teach that a DVD is 100% correct, and one single fact turns out to be incorrect, does it invalidate the whole DVD? No, but coming to that conclusion requires critical thinking, and critical thinking needs to be taught.
Re:A Teachable Moment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome back to the Dark Ages, America.
Can you please do more than saying you're sorry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion does not belong in politics. America fought a revolution to support the idea of brotherhood and equality between humans, and rid the world of archaic notions about some humans being more worthy than other humans, such as so-called "kings" (who, it must be remembered, were thought to derive their political power from divine power).
There is so much about Christianity (and other religions) which is patently un-American, including its references to this dude who died 2,000 years ago as some kind of currently existing "Prince" or a "Lord" or "King" to be "worshipped." Attributing divinity and specialness to certain humans but not others is a slippery path which desensitizes us to tyranny and allows for the hateful mullahs and popes and all the rest of the religious rabble who claim to speak from some special tyrannical authority from on high, instead of from persuasion and reason.
All that said, again, I respect yours or anyone's personal thoughts. If you want to bow down to a green tomato in your own house and predict that one day that green tomato will come flying through the heavens and rapturize people, so be it. But I hope you can understand that in a pluralistic world, many of us have very different faiths about how spirituality and creation and all the rest work, and the most sensible course of action seems to be to respect all faiths.
Take the Moslems and their "infidel" epithet, for example. Poll after poll consistently shows that 96% of the American people believe in God. You would think reasonable people could rejoice in the things they have in common (God) than always fighting over the minutae (whose prophet is the "right" one?)
Denying global warming because your religion makes you think, through faith instead of evidence, that the world is only 14,000 years old is like standing in front of a speeding car and daring it to hit you. The philosopher David Hume tried that with a horse, got clobbered, and realized that reality is actually, in fact, real, and it hurts! Reason is not at all incompatible with faith, but a supplantation of reason by faith is ludicrous and ultimately, evil and tyrannical, leading to concepts like, "Because I believe watching soccer on TV is un-Islamic, I'm going to kill you. Never mind what YOU believe."
It's easy enough for a non-Christian Deist like me (I love God - I hate religion) to denounce guys like this fellow in Washington State. But I really think it is incumbent on the religious who are not "nuts," as you characterize yourself, to do a better job at shouting him down. If the non-tyrannical Christians, Moslems, Jews etcetera don't start stepping up and putting the nut/fascist types of religious folk down, then all that we godly albeit non-religious folk will be able to conclude is that you stand with them, too. If the world needs anything returned or supplanted, it is the replacement of religious nuts by the "normal" religious. Is there such a thing any more, in 2006? Or are you all fascists?
Re:Can you please do more than saying you're sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can you please do more than saying you're sorry (Score:5, Interesting)
But actually, it's a myth [seeingtheforest.com] that scientists in the 1970s predicted an ice age
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
All science ever can be is "just" theories. Some moron will always say that something is "only" a theory and expect that means its probably wrong. Yes atomic theory is "just" a theory, therefore nuclear bombs don't exist. Medical knowledge is all just "guess'" about what people see, medicine must be the hand of god otherwise it wouldn't work. No reputable scientist will back up the last 2 claims but i used to same lines of logic that lead people to believe that global warming does not exist.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Informative)
One of the key questions should be whether we're actually damaging the planet - or if we're just temporarily throwing the curve a little of, mostly creating problems for ourselves. I mean, we know there's been ice ages and warm periods before, are we just doing in a century what'd normally take a few thousand years or are we fundamentally screwing with Earth's ecosystem and risk breaking the whole thing?
Take a look at the 500mio year perspective [wikipedia.org]
Then the closer picture 65mio year perspective [wikipedia.org]
Then the closer picture 5mio year perspective [wikipedia.org]
Then the closer picture 450k year perspective [wikipedia.org]
Then the closer picture 12k year perspective [wikipedia.org]
Then the closer picture 2000 year perspective [wikipedia.org]
Then the closer picture 150 year perspective [wikipedia.org]
Yes, if you look at the last graph it looks like it's going up, up and away. In fact, as far back as the last ice age it'll seem that way. Then you start looking at the big picture - earth has been getting colder on the 450k graph, the 5mio graph, the 65mio graph and the 500mio graph. Earth was much warmer than it's likely to be even with global warming about 120000 years ago. And historicly, earth has been a much warmer place than that again. Yes, I'm sure we'll create a big fuzz over global warming, but I don't see it showing up as more than a blip in the ecosystem.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
but then so are we as a species. so maybe it's in our best interest to keep what you're calling the blip in a stable equilibrium unless you want us all to go extinct and wait till the next ice age to roll around for it to then get just warm enough for our survival to be possible again. i'm all for stabilizing the environment, if possible, regardless of weather or not it's part of some grand design that make the earth go through hot-flashes and chills cycle as if it were menopausal.
how about you?
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever wondered why the icecaps are littered with Mammoth and Sabertooth corpses but not a single dinosaur? The formed long after those creatures were extinct.
What is in dispute however is:
1. Is the Earth warming up too fast. I.e. Will this trigger an effect outside the normal cycle.
2. What effect is that? Will we go into a Greenhouse spiral and become a humid furnace like Venus? or breakup the icecaps so that when they reform the planet plunges into a freeze cycle and becomes a virtual snowball with no summer.
3. Is the current warming cycle being hurried along by humans?
BTW: Ever notice how really ancient cities are mostly inland while recent constructions are mostly on the coast?
Falsifiability is the measure of a sound theory (Score:5, Insightful)
But this probably needs to be looked at in the right context.
The point of a theory is to allow you to predict future results, based first on the current state of the universe, and future actions.
Falsifiability is what makes a sound theory; what this means is that you can predict something using it, and then measure the results of an experiment based on that prediction, and decide categorically, based on the outcome of the experiment, whether the theory is true or false. If it's false, then it's no longer a theory, and we throw it away -- or, if it still gives useful approximations, like Newtonian mechanisc, then we keep it around, but constrain the circumstances in which it should be used as a tool.
Any theory that's not falsifiable is not a theory - it's a hypothesis at best, and at worst, it's a conjecture.
So, for example, creationism isn't a sound theory, and it's not even a reasonable hypothesis, since it's not falsifiable. To falsify it, you would have to be able to come up with a repeatable laboratory experiment that could prove, one way or the other, whether or not there is a creator. Since the conjecture that there's a creator is a tautology, it's impossible to do this. So the next best thing is Occam's Razor, which, to paraphrase into plain English, states that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one".
-
Global warming, at this point, is a theory (based on observation, without contradiction), but it's not a very good one. It's falsifiable, but not in our lifetimes, and not under laboratory conditions.
Human activity being the root cause of the currently observed global warming is, at this point, a hypothesis.
And the movies idea of what will happen if human activity continues in the current direction is merely conjecture.
-
So to get back to your question: the more ways, and the easier, and the more controlled the conditions under which you can falsify a theory, the higher the quality of the theory.
As to soundness of a particular thory, the more ways that can (and have been attempted to) falsify it, and failed to do so, the more sound the theory.
-- Terry
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I the only one here who thinks this is a good thing for kids to see, whether or not you AGREE with Mr. Gore? How about watching it... and then forming an opinion? Or is that a skill we're no longer supposed to possess?
How about dissecting the movie? Taking classes to identify facts, identify opinion, where people may be just guessing, where people are just trying to sway your opinion, and so on?
Personally, on Global Warming, I'm rather neutral. I don't feel that I know enough to form a truly educated opinion. However, I do think that pouring poisonous chemicals non-stop into the atmosphere we breathe isn't very likely to have many "beneficial" side-effects, regardless of whether or not it's contributing/contributing a lot to global warming.
Sorry if this sounded inflammatory, but I'm just rather irritated that the U.S. (from my experience) is doing the best it can to avoid hearing conflicting opinions. "Freedom from offensive or disagreeing speech" is not a Constitutional Right, and I'm sick of people having their lawyers on speed dial for every instance someone decides to bring up unpopular/unorthodox/taboo ideas.
Re:A non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
Re:Moron (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's the Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the real important one right here. Science is not an absolute, it's not a religion, it's not a case of "This is right and there shall be no questions." Science is a process of knowing about the natural world and, by it's nature, there must always be the possibility that you are wrong, your hypothesis must be falsifiable. If it's not, it's not science (that's why Creationism isn't science).
Science class should teach that. Students should be taught to think critically, to understand that science changes and grows and that we probably don't live in the magic time when we have all the right answers. For example I remember in high school chemistry we learned about the structure of the atom. However it wasn't a "This is how atoms are," kind of thing, it was an explanation of how the theory had developed and changed. We started off Dalton model (tiny indivisible spheres) and moved on up to the then current theory of electron probability clouds. We learned a little of quantum theory and were made to understand that while we are pretty sure of this stuff, we don't know that we won't have a better understanding of atoms in the future.
This is why global warming raises such an alarm bell with me, because it never seems to be presented in this way. People trumpet it as something of which there is NO DOUBT, a fact, not a theory (it is a theory, so is how gravity works, and so on). If you question it you are stupid, or an industry shill, or ignoring the issue, and so on. That doesn't sound like science to me, that sounds like religion. Something you are supposed to accept on faith, and never question, lest you be branded a heretic.
So while I certainly want global warming, or rather general climate change, theory taught to students, I don't want it handed down as something to which there can be no debate because there IS debate. I want students shown the different arguments, especially when people analyze the same data and come to different conclusions. I want them to learn about computer modeling, its uses and its limitations. Basically I want them to come out with a better understanding of how science is done and the information surrounding the GW debate, not with a set of statements presented as dogma.