Re: [asa] Evolution and history compulsory

Bill & Dave, some replies below.

Bill,

I'd agree with you to a point - I think evolutionary theory and QM are
comparable in a number of ways, though with some key differences. But notice
the gulf of difference between how the two are treated (or really, how
evolutionary treated versus just about any other scientific topic). The
authors of Quantum Enigma state that their personal experience is that their
colleagues prefer to keep a lid on QM precisely because they think it would
lead people to speculations they'd prefer less attention be paid to. Though
of course that's just the opinion of two physicists.

Certainly, most people are unaware of QM. But certainly the physicists
aren't, nor are the physicists unaware of the public's ignorance of such
issues. And yet, there is no QM equivalent of the NCSE. Presidential
candidates are not asked about QM. Belief in QM is not tracked as a (really,
the) measure of the public's science education.

Or, to put it another way: Very often the tremendous focus on evolution ends
up being billed as a benign interest in nothing but science and science
education. That's a large part of what I see as the absurdity of the issue.
It's clearly about far more than that, no matter what particular wing of the
debate someone is part of.

Dave,

I'm not sure there's anyone who would both take philosophy and/or theology
seriously, and not have a strong opinion about QM. Einstein wasn't exactly a
YEC, and he had major issues with it (and he was far from alone in that
regard.) Henry Stapp loves to insist that modern philosophers and scientists
are so ill at ease with quantum physics that they largely try to ignore it
and treat the world the old, classical way.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:28 AM, wjp <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

> Schwarzwald:
>
> I'm not certain why you say,
> "I think it's obviously ridiculous, and the idea of treating QM the same
> way evolution is treated goes a long way towards illustrating some of the
> absurdities that come up with the topic of teaching evolution."
>
> It seems to me that evolutionary theory and QM (or SR and GR) have a lot
> in common. They each involve an interaction between epistemology and
> ontology, between what we observe and how we account for that host of
> observations, attempting, and believing that we can "make sense" of it all.
>
> It seems to me that there are as many possibilities of theological
> discussions
> with QM as for evolution. Witness the role that QM plays in divine action
> and
> notions of free will and consciousness. Note also that the Big Bang
> cosmology
> and GR have implications for theology. I think that all these instances
> one
> might at some point be challenged to answer whether you "believe" them or
> not,
> and, if you do, in what sense do you "believe" them.
>
> So I don't think it is "absurd" or impossible to imagine that QM would be
> treated
> the same as evolution. The only reason that this is not well-known is that
> most
> people are unaware of QM and surely not aware of the implications that
> many, like
> Murray Gell-Mann draw from it. The same can be said of the many wild and
> speculative
> cosmological models.
>
> bill
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:01:48 -0500, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Heya Bill,
> >
> > Honestly, for the purposes of this point we could substitute any number
> of
> > topics. Quantum physics springs to mind as an apt example primarily
> > because
> > of the controversies surrounding the "philosophical" aspects of it, and
> > the
> > effect it had on philosophical debate, particularly with regards to
> > materialism. It deals with an important aspect of reality, etc, and has
> > made
> > quite an impact on our modern economy from what I read.
> >
> > I'm not seriously advocating we teach quantum physics in high school, or
> > certainly grade school - though I'd question whether simply walking
> > through
> > the twin-slit experiment and dealing with the more basic aspects of the
> > topic would be "more like a religion class" than a science class. But I'm
> > pointing out that, when it comes to science education, I'm willing to bet
> > most people are utterly ignorant about quantum physics - yet this isn't
> > viewed as a travesty. To hear many people talk, "science education" is
> > synonymous with "believing in evolution". And even then, not really
> > understanding evolutionary theory, but specifically believing it,
> > preferably
> > without qualification.
> >
> > I think it's obviously ridiculous, and the idea of treating QM the same
> > way
> > evolution is treated goes a long way towards illustrating some of the
> > absurdities that come up with the topic of teaching evolution.
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 9:41 AM, wjp <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not certain why teaching QM in high school has come up.
> >> QM can be taught in a number of ways.
> >>
> >> I remember by undergraduate and graduate classes in QM as primarily
> >> a study of mathematics & mathematical approximation, often guided by a
> >> presumed happy union with semi-classical methods and ways of thinking.
> >>
> >> It was taught simply as a physicist's tool, little, if nothing, was said
> > of
> >> various metaphysical or philosophical interpretations.
> >>
> >> It is only in the last 20 years that I have begun to think of the
> > supposed
> >> philosophical implications, both for the nature of the world and the
> > nature
> >> of science.
> >>
> >> What would be said in a high school QM class where none of the
> > mathematics
> >> would be presented? Wouldn't it be all interpretation, all philosophy?
> >> It sounds like it would be some popular exposition, more like a religion
> >> class.
> >>
> >> The same can be said of all of physics, including SR and GR. Without
> > the
> >> mathematics, what are we left with? We are not left with tools, but
> >> studies
> >> of the nature of the world and the nature of epistemology. This is
> >> interesting
> >> stuff, but it is NOT science. Witness, for example, that 100 years
> > after
> >> Einstein's landmark 1905 paper on SR, and the relativity of simultaneity
> > it
> >> is
> >> still be debated whether Einstein "got it right." Not that people doubt
> >> the
> >> mathematics and the physics. They doubt whether Einstein's arguments
> > are
> >> correct. They doubt, as for QM, whether it speaks of epistemology or
> >> ontology.
> >> Yet, it seems to me, that from the beginning it was about epistemology.
> >> Even the light postulate says that all observers will *measure* the same
> >> speed
> >> of light regardless of their "inertial" frame relative to the source.
> >> It appears to strictly speaking be saying something about measurement
> > and
> >> nothing about ontology. It is silent on what is behind the empiricism.
> >> In as much as science relies upon observable results, we are bound only
> > to
> >> what can be observed. For all we know, it could be a trick of God.
> >>
> >> So, tell me, what have I missed. Why teach QM, and what would be
> > taught?
> >>
> >> bill
> >>
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:23:02 -0500, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > What a load of nonsense, Bernie. The fact is that most people don't
> > know
> >> a
> >> > damn thing about quantum physics, much less the twin-slit experiment,
> > and
> >> > would likely instinctively reject assertions related to such - but,
> > even
> >> > though quantum physics challenges a very common, fundamental belief
> > about
> >> > reality, the "defenders of science" could not care less. Because what
> >> > concerns them, at the end of the day, isn't science anyway.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> >> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> “Maybe we should organization national groups whose goal it is to
> >> > promote
> >> >> the teaching of and belief in quantum physics. Maybe we should
> > conduct
> >> > polls
> >> >> repeatedly, tracking what percentage of the population believes in
> >> > quantum
> >> >> physics. Maybe we should ask presidential candidates whether or not
> > they
> >> >> accept quantum physics, or what their opinion is on the twin-slit
> >> >> experiment.”
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> All that WOULD be necessary if some religious group were opposed to
> >> > quantum
> >> >> physics, and even denouncing it from the mega-church pulpits, as with
> >> >> evolution. I recently saw Ken Ham in town at a large megachurch,
> >> > presenting
> >> >> all of his evidence to show that evolution is a farce, based on a
> > faulty
> >> >> atheistic worldview. No- he did not have the guts for a public Q&A.
> >> > But he
> >> >> did mention that atheists attend his meetings and are afraid to ask
> >> >> questions (I was wondering how he thought atheists should ask
> > questions
> >> > when
> >> >> he doesn’t even give the opportunity… I suppose he thinks their
> >> > opportunity
> >> >> is 1-1 in the foyer during the break.)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> …Bernie
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> >> > *On
> >> >> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> >> >> *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2009 1:39 AM
> >> >> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Evolution and history compulsory
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Heya Dave,
> >> >>
> >> >> Demanding quantum physics be a required course in school? Interesting
> > -
> >> >> after all, quantum physics is a very far-reaching and important field
> >> > that
> >> >> shook up what used to be our tradition understanding of nature. Maybe
> > we
> >> >> should organization national groups whose goal it is to promote the
> >> > teaching
> >> >> of and belief in quantum physics. Maybe we should conduct polls
> >> > repeatedly,
> >> >> tracking what percentage of the population believes in quantum
> > physics.
> >> >> Maybe we should ask presidential candidates whether or not they
> > accept
> >> >> quantum physics, or what their opinion is on the twin-slit
> > experiment.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah. That'd come across as absurd, wouldn't it.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Dave Wallace
> >> > <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Primary school children in England will have to learn about evolution
> >> > and
> >> >> British history under a shake-up of the national curriculum.
> >> >>
> >> >> Iain and Michael looks like possible trouble? North Americian
> >> > stupidity.
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems seems to me that the physicists should demand that quantum
> >> > physics
> >> >> be taught, in fact each field of science should demand an advanced
> >> > course be
> >> >> taught in elementary school. ;(
> >> >>
> >> >> Dave W
> >> >>
> >> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >> "unsubscribe
> >> >> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 21 10:54:31 2009