> Physics is actually a lot more like math, in the
>sense that it is largely a theoretical domain
>with amazingly practical use in describing the
>way the universe works. It defines its own
>terms, and therefore, by its very nature, cannot
>be wrong.

Uh, yeah it can. You said yourself physics is only interesting in as far as it accurately models the universe we see around us. It's trivially easy to set up self consistent theories of physics that have no relation to anything in the "real world". Nobody gives a crap about those, though, because they're not useful.

We only care about physics that properly models what we see around us. In that respect, Newtonian mechanics is wrong when you get down to the sub atomic level. So it's clear the model needed to be reevaluated.

> For example, when Newton was proved wrong by QM,
>he wasn't actually wrong. Newtonian physics is a
>mathematical system that is internally
>consistent, *and* continues to have practical
>application in the universe. Yet, when you get
>right down to the nitty gritty, the universe just
>doesn't follow Newtonian rules with flawless
>precision. But so what? If the activity you are
>doing is done in the domain of Newtonian physics
>-- that is, the Newtonian rules of physics are
>your premises upon which you build your research
>and experimentation -- then he's right, and
>you're right for anything you come up with.
>Period. Of course, we continue to refine our
>findings in the field of physics, because we
>continue to run into situations (micro instead of
>macro, for a trivial example) where our existing
>formulas fail to accurately describe the
>universe. But it doesn't mean we are suddenly
>unable to calculate how long an apple will take
>to hit the ground without QM.

It depends on how much accuracy you want. If you need to know the answer to the hillion jillionth decimal place (and you wouldn't, ever, but humor me) you *would* need more than Newtonian physics (and not QM, since QM doesn't encompass gravity yet--you'd need General Relativity) to find out when the apple hits the ground.

I'm seriously not understanding what we're debating here, though. But I think that's because...

>
> Biology is a totally different arena. It's not
>about the rules of the universe. It's not about
>what *can* happen. It's about what *did* happen,
>what *is* and *was*. In physics, a theoretical
>apple can fall from a tree at an acceleration of
>9.8 meters per second squared. You're right. In
>biology, if the apple was really an orange, or if
>it didn't fall from the tree at all, you're
>wrong. Period. There's no theoretical domain in
>which you're right. There's no reasoning that
>the apple must have fallen, because if it did
>fall, it would have fallen in a manner consistent
>with physics. It just plain didn't freaking
>fall.

...I've read this paragraph about six times now and I have no clue what your argument is. I'm not trying to be obtuse either. I just really have no idea what this means.

>
> > Can you name one other bit of commonly
>>accepted (by scientists) science that you would
>>want taught this way?
>
> Yes. All of them. Again, I don't think you are
>understanding the method of education I'm
>proposing.
>
> Let's just take physics as an example (although
>for the reasons outlined above I'm ok with a
>"facts are facts" approach with physics and
>chemistry). YOU tell ME why a student who
>doesn't learn the following isn't getting the
>best possible education:
>
> 1. How to use the scientific method to draw
> conclusions about physics.
> 2. All the major conclusions that have been
> drawn by scientists about physics.
>

That sounds great. What I'm not seeing is how that's different from how Physics is taught now. My only real beef with my science education in high school was a lack of emphasis on the scientific method. It was there, but I feel it wasn't emphasized enough throughout the process of learning the nitty gritty of mechanics and magnetism and whatnot.

Seriously, what *is* a physics class now but those two points you just outlined? You learn the scientific method, then they teach you about mechanics, optics, magnetism, heat--I.E. all the major conclusions physicists have come up with using the scientific method over the years.

I think what you're really upset with is that you just flat out don't agree with "the major conclusions that have been drawn by scientists" in the field of evolutionary biology, so you don't want it being taught the way we teach equivalent major conclusions in other sciences--as the best solution that fits the data.

> Right now, I think all we're doing is piling on
>facts to memorize, and they come out of school
>with all kinds of rote trivia memorized (which
>they forget a year later) and yet are utterly
>incapable of actually thinking for themselves.

I think in many cases you're right. I agree that *more* emphasis needs to be put on the scientific method. But really, when you're teaching basic science in high school, you're trying to get across basic fundamentals. A very high percentage of the kids who take Biology in high school are not going to end up as research biologists. So for the vast majority of kids, the schools are just trying to instill a really basic knowledge of the discipline. You do that by teaching some rote facts and hoping some of them stick.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see every high school in the US offer a class in critical thinking. This would include more serious study of the scientific method, plus would teach inductive and deductive reasoning, and how to detect bull. But I know exactly what'd happen if this were the case. The first time somebody's kid came home from school questioning whatever dogma he was raised to believe because of the skills and tools he'd learned in this new class, there'd be a lawsuit from some overzealous parent about how the schools were destroying the "moral foundation" of their children or some such thing by teaching them to think critically.

-- Dave