Perhaps we should teach "both sides" of gravity as well?
http://ncse.com/taking-action/stop-ohio-anti-science-bill
http://ncse.com/taking-action/stop-ohio-anti-science-bill
Ohio anti-science bill
- Thread starter Beeazlebub
- Start date
The author specifically points out climate change. I have no problem with schools talking about climate change since this planet has been experiencing climate change since its 1st day of existence.
Why would anyone be opposed to talking about the various theories on the causes of climate change? Present all of the information to the students and allow them to think for themselves. To do anything less stifles learning.
Why would anyone be opposed to talking about the various theories on the causes of climate change? Present all of the information to the students and allow them to think for themselves. To do anything less stifles learning.
There are other theories on gravity or a whole host of other things. They should be talked about too right? I mean we don't want our teachers to actually... You know...teach. Instead they should just list a bunch a theories and let the ten year olds figure it out.
I actually agree with teaching both sides of the climate issue, so long as one of the sides is not the full on denial that climate change is happening. As far as whether human caused climate change is as big a problem as some claim, it seems that there is at least some valid scientific arguments on both sides.
I don't, however, think intelligent design has any place in a science classroom. It may well deserve to be taught, but not as science because it is not science.
Because the anthropogenic signature in climate change is a scientific fact, and there is no competing theory that explains the recent warming of the planet. Saying that the climate has changed before is a red herring. Of course the climate has changed in the past, but the only way to explain the most recent changes in climate is by taking anthropogenic activities into account.
So because there is no "competing theory" at the moment other than "man did this" then man made climate change is scientific fact?
"You can't disprove what I'm saying so I must be right!"
Can you disprove my theory that there were 12 pink elephants dancing inside Mackey Arena last night? No? Well, then those big eared boys must have had a grand ol time!
This logic has worked for you in the past, but not in this case. There is no evidence for the 12 pink elephants, but there is overwhelming evidence for the anthropogenic signature in global warming.
Anthropogenic global warming and the resulting climate change is as much of a fact as just about anything in science. Could some new data arise to alter our understanding of the climate system? Sure! Until it does, science goes with the data at hand.
When I say "fact" I do not mean proof. Proof is for math and alcohol while science is all about probabilities. It is highly probable that the current warming we're experiencing on the planet is due to human activity. Might it be that one of your Mackey elephants is using a hot-air machine to influence the global climate system? Maybe, but there is no evidence to support such an incredible idea, and therefore no reason to teach such rubbish as a competing theory.
when you use words like "scientific fact"
it seems pretty clear to me you don't understand the scientific method or science period very well.
Yes, the fact that there is not a competing theory with anything near the evidence of human-influenced global warming makes that theory the best current operating theory we have. JUST like evolution, JUST like relativity, JUST like the Standard Theory, JUST like quantum mechanics.
It's ALWAYS possible that someone will come along, and provide more evidence for a different theory. Good science allows and encourages this. SO maybe some day someone will show stronger evidence that invisible elephant farts are responsible for climate change. If so, then that will be the theory we go with, until something better comes along.
Just like right now we are going with relativity because all of our experiments show it's correct, but if a new Einstein comes along and shows us better evidence for something else, then guess what, relativity goes onto the scrap heap.
it seems pretty clear to me you don't understand the scientific method or science period very well.
Yes, the fact that there is not a competing theory with anything near the evidence of human-influenced global warming makes that theory the best current operating theory we have. JUST like evolution, JUST like relativity, JUST like the Standard Theory, JUST like quantum mechanics.
It's ALWAYS possible that someone will come along, and provide more evidence for a different theory. Good science allows and encourages this. SO maybe some day someone will show stronger evidence that invisible elephant farts are responsible for climate change. If so, then that will be the theory we go with, until something better comes along.
Just like right now we are going with relativity because all of our experiments show it's correct, but if a new Einstein comes along and shows us better evidence for something else, then guess what, relativity goes onto the scrap heap.
Latest posts
-
-
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-