While the title of the article makes it seem like a good (or at least neutral) thing, the content of the article makes it quite clear that this is going to be a gift to the anti-science crowd.

So no, it won't encourage people to think, it will just give more weapons to climate-change deniers and abstinence-only sex ed supporters.

> a gift to the anti-science crowd...

How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?

This enters the realm of politics where everything is up in the air. (Peer-reviewed) Science is pretty much considered fact. The only crowds this will benefit are as said above climate-change deniers (because they fear for their profits from fossil fuels), abstinence-only sex ed supporters(because they're blinded by their religious superstitions), anti-vaxxers (who consider one falsified and later retracted "study" as "evidence" that vaccines somehow cause autism). This benefits them because it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. This is pretty similar to how the Somali community in Minnesota was influenced to be anti-vaxxers and now look at the result [0]...

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rag...

> it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier.

My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose?

> manipulate people a lot easier.

So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?

Where do these critical thinking skills to detect bullshit come from? Look at all the bullshit we inherited from Aristotle. No one even thought to think it was bullshit until people came along and said "let's see" and actually started performing experiments and thus introducing the Scientific Age. Ask any small child which will object will fall faster: a 10 Kg weight or a 5 Kg weight and they'll unanimously say the 10 Kg weight.

So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit.

It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion.

So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything.

Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'

You are entirely missing the point. The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit (or selective truths) (for what ever reasons), so no side should be forced to silence...

> The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit

I expect that you can provide examples of this. Until now, the ones spouting bullshit is the anti science one.

>I expect that you can provide examples of this

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fda-drug...

So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit? Or is it not bullshit because that is the best we could have done, but we still sold it as legit, without saying about the flaws in our process, which is why I mentioned selectively saying the truth...

I am pretty sure one can come up with other serious cases where "science" of today turned out to be bullshit later. The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example. Pretty sure that have been similar issues recently regarding diet, pesticide use, use of plastics and stuff like that...

EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...

> So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit?

No, it is not bullshit.

> The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example

Are you talking about the study that the people that has passed this bill would be glad to use?

Yes, that study was bullshit and a fraud, and no, the pro vaccination people didn't did ant bullshit. > EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...

No, it is not the word of god, but when a topic has been proved for decades and innumerable experiments it is fairly sure that the science is sound.

And yes, I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution and Climate Change basis. The TWO topics that this bill will be against.

By the way, one is a physics topic.

There's an entire discipline regarding how and when science switches paradigms, to borrow a Kuhnian word.

I think the best guard against any of this is the old Feynman test. Can you explain the idea sufficiently to a lay person that they can understand the idea? Then we understand it. Until then, there's more work to do and you cannot malign anyone for disbelieving you.

> There's an entire discipline regarding how and when science switches paradigms, to borrow a Kuhnian word.

Thing that has nothing to do with this bill

> I think the best guard against any of this is the old Feynman test.

And this has nothing to do with this bill.

Theory of Evolution and Climate change has been explained sufficiently in laymen terms to be comprehended by anyone.

What this bill does is trying to negate the science without having anything to do if it has been tested or explained in simple terms

Sorry, I was playing a bit of devil's advocate, or at the very least the pragmatist. This bill is terrible, I agree with you. But I think we have to be careful when we declare the scientific method as the end all be all of knowledge. I would argue that at this point climate change is NOT explainable to a layperson, or else we wouldn't be in this mess. I'm almost as afraid of people who aggressively want to sequester carbon, as those who propose we do nothing.

My point about paradigms is that science moves in demonstrable paradigms and it is very, very difficult (if not impossible) for an entrenched scientist to move beyond the paradigm in which they work.

The best guard against this is limited lifespans.

I'll also throw in there that if we had a Feynman-esque way of explaining evolution to high school students, we wouldn't be in this mess, but it turns out gene expression and the development of photo-sensitive skin is actually very difficult to comprehend completely.

But the mess is almost exclusively in the US.

How do you explain it?

Because of the rise of Christian fundamentalism in this country. Many of the most ardent supporters of the movement here are ex-pats from Australia, so I'd wager either they've all come here, or some shenanigans are up in Australia too but they don't get global press coverage.

"what is there to loose"

Time. There is a lot to cover in school. Time spent to cover all of the bullshit is time taken away from other topics. How much time should be spent in showing that bullshit like phrenology, blood type personality theory, Kirlian auras, the Hollow Earth theory, baraminology, and orgone energy is actually bullshit, and what existing topics should be covered less?

Cost of training. Young Earth Creationists over the last 56 years (dating from Henry Morris's "The Genesis Flood") have assembled a large collection of crappy arguments, every one of which has been shown to be invalid. Many of the counter-arguments are collected in sites like talkorigins.org.

However, it takes specialized knowledge to be able to counter each one. For an example from the talkorigins.org FAQ, suppose a student in physics class asks "I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?"

How many physics teachers do you know are aware of Barry Setterfield's C-Decay hypothesis and the details of its flaws? How much time would it take to train all teachers to be able to show that each argument is bullshit, rather than simply say it's bullshit then move on?

If a teacher does not know how to refute a claim or answer a question, they should research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question. I mean, not everyone has to be taught about everything...

Of course there are topics that are way above the heads of teachers. But these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think. Just because some topics are super hard does not mean that all such things should be taken on faith in science...

You expressed an ideal view of what teaching should be, and could be if there is the time and funding for it.

However, you did not actually address my points.

When is the teacher supposed to research it? Teachers are already busy at school, and many end up also working at home. Will they get extra time at work for this research, or will it be more unpaid work for them at home?

Or will some existing demands on their time be removed, and if so, which ones? Will those demands be eliminated, or will the school hire additional staff?

When is the teacher supposed to explain it to the student? Which other topics should be covered less or skipped?

On top of that, this is the state of Florida, which has been deprofessionalizing teachers. The state removed tenure a few years ago, and switched to yearly contracts. Lawyers for the state argued in court that "reports card are meaningless and don't show if someone can read at grade level". (See http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/06/fl-death-to-publi... for more examples.)

This is the state that won't require 20 minutes of daily unstructured playtime for elementary school because 'There is a lot of emphasis on performing well on the mandated tests,” United Teachers of Dade president Karla Hernandez-Mats said. “Therefore teachers focus on utilizing every minute of instructional time.” http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-po...

This despite research showing how important recess is for the physical, mental, and social development of elementary school children.

That development isn't on the standardized tests. Neither are oddball/bullshit questions. Florida is doing all it can to de-incentivize a teacher from taking the time to "research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question".

>You expressed an ideal view of what teaching should be...

ideal? Try minimal. What according to you is the minimum requirement for teaching? Orating a textbook in front of a class and map questions to answers and make students learn the mapping?

Remember, we're talking about bullshit topics.

A teacher should be able to say that it's bullshit, or more politely "outside the scope of the class", and move on, without the obligation to research it further.

It doesn't even need to be a bullshit topic. If a student asks a math teacher "What is the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle?", do you really think the math teacher "should research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question"?

No, I don't think so. Teachers are not there as custom research assistants.

Furthermore, at some point the student needs to learn to do independent research, rather than always expecting that the teacher will be able to explain it to a student. This won't happen if teachers always spoon-feed answers.

We could totally change the system so that teachers are able to research and answer off-the-wall topics. However, you have still not addressed my points. Who will pay for the training and time needed for the teachers to research and answer bullshit questions, and which material should be covered less in order to teach bullshit topics?

Also, some students will deliberately ask questions to derail the class. "I was just asking questions". The teacher should be be under no obligation to answer those questions, and in fact should be able to reprimand that sort of behavior.

The bill is not to answer question, the bill is for removing material

"People" who spout nonsense again and again for some form of monetary gain or to live out and push on others their religious superstitions want to force their stance into the public eye through proposals like this.

> My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science.

> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?

If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.

> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

> Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?

Because removal won't necessarily be decided by a scientist. It will be decided by someone appointed by the school board.

Also there are guidelines for removal of stuff on the basis of the "belief that the material is “pornographic”".

This has nothing to do with the certanity of science (which is not an absolute, anyway) or the fact that "deep down we're not really sure".

> How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd?

Because it's not whether science can answer the questions, it's whether the hearing officers have any interest in answering the questions. And it's clear by the way the bill was designed, that the hearing officers will be chosen so that they do not.

It is a gift because the bill doesn't talk about the validity of the science

Yup, and the first question on everyone's mind should of course be "proof, or faith?" The second, "to know, or to believe?" Seriously, the fricking Pope has more faith in science than the people who support these kinds of laws, at some point you gotta ask yourself "am I a good Christian, or a Christian extremist?" If the Pope distances himself from your religious practices, it's starting to look like the latter

The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine. He's not a benchmark of a traditional Christian. Also, most American Christians aren't catholic.

> The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine

Eh, no, for decades now the Catholic Church has been pro science and accepting scientific theories like Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory, etc.

That's not any of the stuff I'm talking about. Francis is, by far, the most outspoken supporter of homosexuality in recent papal history. Francis changed church policy in favor of divorces and annulments. He's also made many modern-liberal-friendly statements on abortion, environmental politics, economic inequality, and extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. He's very obviously retargeting church policy/optics in favor of a more liberal market. My guess is he's trying to pick up a bunch of atheist-by-birth millenials in the US and EU who tend to follow these politics.

But this does not follow a scientific process. People filing complaints don't need to disprove or prove anything taught. They just need to make the case that the material is not age appropriate. The criteria enployed are entirely subjective and unscientific.

The US is already settling far too many issues in court.

Issues like this are political questions which should be settled by a broad political debate rather than individuals creating endless courtcases in their local towns.

Yes, people should start by standing up in church and debate the validity of sermons and their source material.

Actually not. In church you are supposed to have faith. Not so much so in science.

Why? If you are meant to question education, why not question pastors/vicars/preachers/televangelists/people of the cloth/faith healers/popes/bible thumpers/bishops/fire and brimstone merchants and Archdeacons?

why the double standard?

The whole point of Christianity is faith. At least that's a very widespread interpretation with an educated basis.

If you aren't factoring that in to your comment, it comes off a little like you are trolling or being facile.

Accepting the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a point of faith is arguably the only working definition of a "Christian."

sigh, not trolling. why not question everything?

If you have faith, why do you need to have churches?

why don't churches start "red teams" to debate the Word. so that people can be reassured by the certainty of the teachings to bolster faith?

A lot of hardcore evangelicals are actually not in favor of churches and prefer bible-reading peer groups, although these serve a similar function and are just as conformist, or more, than churches.

I don't feel like digging up references for this right now. Follow some fundamentalist Christians on FB if you want to have a look into a very different reality tunnel.

The content of religious texts and the nuance of interpretation is debated heavily by tons of religious people.

It's simply that if you believe more or less in the texts but don't have faith in that one fact, your beliefs are more in line with Jews or Muslims who believe Jesus was a prophet, but aren't so sold on the literal resurrection/savior/son of god/messiah aspect.

>why not question everything?

Because the point of belief is not finding truth (Doubt it ever was), but finding peace, comfort and may be a sense of community and togetherness..

Right. And the point of science is the exploration of demonstrable facts. Belief and knowledge are two separate domains, and never the twain shall meet.

This is not historically accurate. For example, Newton was both an insanely awesome scientist and devoted theologian. Similarly Galileo said "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word". There is a large movement called "apologetics" in the Christian world which sees faith and reason and science as mutually compatible. Ravi Zacharias is one of the great Christian thinkers of today who explains this well.

I think the real thing is that most people just don't really care about science, Christian or no. Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.

> Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.

Any example of that?

I think the problem is less that atheists take the word of scientists at their word, so much as people assume that because something is common, it is either safe, or true. It's the weird intersection of knowledge and belief.

Here in coastal communities many people are still allowed to do "overboard discharge," or dumping raw sewage into the ocean. The understanding being the ocean is so big we couldn't possibly hurt the ecosystem. Here in Maine, there have actually been many deeply flawed scientific studies that justified these policies as scientifically true.

Now, of course, we know how fragile the ocean and, indeed, any ecosystem is. But common belief is that science has shown that dumping your shit in the ocean is environmentally okay and that is used to justify a convenient action. Even though the action hardly passes the (literal) smell test.

> Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.

Can't agree more with this.

This is exactly why there should be a stage available to ask all kinds of questions without fearing shaming.

This is the exact opposite of allowing people to ask questions, it's helping to ensure that their pre-existing beliefs never have to be called into question.

I think this bill is not for asking questions

I agree. There are a lot of very smart people on both sides of the issue. It is better to be exposed to both sides.

Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks. Even Steve jobs, who was by no means traditional, prohibited nudity from the App Store because he thought it was bad for young people.

No Steve thought nudity was bad business for a high-end brand like Apple.

No I read somewhere reputable, I think in his biography that he though this.

Is Techcrunch reputable enough for you guys?

https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/

We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone.

You know, there’s a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That’s a place we don’t want to go – so we’re not going to go there.

Porn isn't the same as nudity. Nick Ut's famous "The Terror of War", showing children fleeing a napalm attack during the Vietnam war, includes a naked girl screaming as the napalm melts layers off her skin.

There is nothing pornographic about that nudity.

> It is better to be exposed to both sides.

What sides?

> Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks

What's the problem with nudity in biology or anatomy books?

Would you prefer to debate the nudity being bad for young people or whether this law has any legitimate use?

Is nudity bad for grownups? Does the law that prevents public exposure has any legitimate use?

This isn't about grown ups, it's about children in school.

Can you explain why nudity the natural state of the human body only becomes acceptable after people reach a wholly artificial age set by society.

The reality is that the nudity taboo is an artifact of culture that is obsolete.

Primitive religions controlled access to sex by forbidding sex outside of marriage and maintaining a monopoly on access to the marital bed. Sexuality outside of marriage was associated with moral breakdown because it encouraged disobedience to the central source of moral authority.

The interesting thing is that people can encourage their particular nudity taboo while scoffing at others as if a particular part of the human body was implicitly somehow more sinful. The taboo that says its necessary for a woman to hide her face is no different, better, or worse than the taboo that says she has to hide her rear end.

On the other side its perfectly ok for people to maintain the style of dress that makes them comfortable. If you desire to hide everything but your eyeballs that's your right but it becomes morally problematic when people attempt to make the world at large or the internet comport with their sensibilities. Its as sensible as only wearing red and insist that nobody be allowed to wear blue or be seen in the world at large or online attired in blue. Basically the world would be a better place if people didn't impose their hang ups on others.

Your turn.

Is nudity bad for children?

Perhaps because I'm from a zone where nudity is not a great deal and you can even walk in beach promenades and see nudist beaches and no one cares.