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?

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'

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

How do you explain it?

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?

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...

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".

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?

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.

> 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.

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