reply to post by NewAgeMan
The issue isnt so much the data itself. Things are quite obviously patterned in a certain way with at least some semblance to consistency, or else
even the process of science would be a moot point. We even see similar patterns when we look into things like cymatics.
So, we know these patterns exist solely on the basis that they manifest. It is in our interpretation that things get subjective. And this inevitably
leads to subjective interpretation which will always
be based in bias. What you present is not indicative of anything other than the patterns
and data themselves. We can, and do, make inferences off of that data but that is where inherent limitations come into play.
The data you present can pretty easily be interpreted another way, is what I am saying. There is definitely the possibility you are correct, but only
in so far as the human perspective can understand the presented data. This is a limitation that can not be pushed aside, only worked with and
Originally posted by domasio
The only thing I can say is, how about we just don't teach children anything that isn't a proven fact?
The issue is that "proven fact" is entirely subject to change. Evolution, with the exception of having little to no evidence of transpeciation, is as
much of a "proven fact" as things like biology and chemistry.
Instead of teaching children our current limited interpretation of the data as "fact," I feel we should instead be teaching them how to explore it
themselves. This applies across the board from religion to school. Perhaps in the lower grades (1-9 or so), we focus on teaching them how to apply
things like the scientific method and come to their own conclusions about many things, which is then reviewed by the rest of the classroom who also
operate on the basis of the scientific method. They always have the internet as well. Then, as they get older and have been trained to properly
question and understand the limitations of interpretation through their own experience, we can start introducing them to "what we currently know."
It seems to me that doing it the other way around is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. They are unlikely to question the foundation of
their education learned in earlier years, so I feel it might be better to have that foundation be the scientific method itself instead of
indoctrination into inherently limited interpretations that the method has yielded. Even if they do question it currently, the scientific method will
rarely be used, and we will generally just take an "anti" stance that has no basis outside of our own reactionary bias and will jump to conclusions
based on no evidence, or only the evidence we want to see. This is likely a result of not teaching our children the inherent flaws in interpretation,
and they do not have the opportunity to learn it from experience. We see this either/or scenario play out every day, in every arena, including in
As it currently stands, the scientific method is introduced (at best) in high school, and rarely sees the light of day outside of the science courses.
But I do feel it is the best method of exploration and learning that we currently have and has much wider application.
edit on 29-8-2012 by
Serdgiam because: grammar