healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

[Teflor Lyorian]

The Roman Catholics are a great study of how logic works on religion. If you haven't had the opportunity to see how much the church has changed over the years, then you are missing out on a significant portion of my argument. They've left behind notions of a flat earth, that the heavens revolve around the earth, so forth and so on, and are arguably a BETTER determination of when a science is settled than anything else.

Ultimately, religions are like societies, systems of governments, and even philosophical schools: they are made out of people.

Things do change in religion, as much as they do outside of it.

In each of those examples, the myth was dispelled by science and much later taken as fact by the church. Don't forget what they did to Galileo for thinking such preposterous and blasphemous things. The fact that they've later been taken up by the church only shows the complete fallibility of the church, it's texts, the inductions and deductions from the texts, its logic, and their ability to use logic in any way resembling critique. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Logic never "worked" on religion, it pounded religion until it gave up. Unfortunately, religion keeps throwing bodies at a solid wall expecting it to pass through it, century after century, only to find out there was a door just a few steps down.

Here's the difference in other words, with respect to logic: A good scientist endlessly tries to disprove his theories; a good priest endlessly tries to defend and prove his beliefs.

Do you know a good scientist anywhere? Robert Andrews Millikan anyone?

Priests, by the way, are usually overruled by other priests. As it usually is with scientists.

[Kifle]

I think you're just arguing to argue now :)

[Teflor Lyorian]

A good follower questions their faith. You're trying to create a divide between religion and a scientific belief structure that doesn't exist.

The religion of science is as logically bankrupt as the church of any other system of beliefs.

The scientific method is not something to be believed in, rather, it is a tool. Like religion, this societal tool can be used to our benefit AND our detriment. Religion speaks to a preprogrammed need for a social belief structure, just the same as the scientific method speaks to a preprogrammed need to explain and exploit our surroundings.

When it comes to how we determine what is moral - what is and is not a right of human beings - religion and science comes down to the dominant beliefs of individuals taken as a whole. Regardless of what is claimed to have guided them, they are still based on the values instilled in the individuals, as well as emotional responses that may or may not have been genetically constructed for us. Immutable religious law ONLY exists where there are people who support, defend, and enforce them - the same with conclusions derived from the belief system of 'science.'

My argument is simple. Religious human rights and human rights determined from deductive reasoning are completely dependent upon that which the dominant group of individuals _believe_. If they are 'convinced' because someone else told them that god said so, or because someone else argued them into believing it is of no consequence - for really, you could have picked either path. If it was a compatible idea to that individual in the first place, so it would have been.

[kiryan]

I agree with Teflor. Basically you and all anti-religious people say Science is fundamentally and unquestionably true and gives it the right to dictate all choices.

Serious students of philosophy and ethics should disagree.

[Sarvis]

I agree with Teflor. Basically you and all anti-religious people say Science is fundamentally and unquestionably true

No... no one says that except Christians desperate to discredit science.

[Kifle]

No, what I'm doing is drawing a line which exists in reality. And it really boils down to how deduction and induction is used within the two spheres of thought. And, if we cannot agree on this, then I don't see the discussion moving anywhere constructive.

Basically, religion is not disprovable, science is. That is the major difference. I can disprove Newton's laws of motion by virtue of the claims. I cannot disprove god by virtue of the claims. This is the fundamental demarcation of science, pseudoscience, and religion. The first can be disproved, the latter two cannot. Science uses logic to find the truth, while pseudoscience and religion use logic to find faith, as every line of thought in the two lead or are led from a premise or group of premises that are fundamentally disprovable (such as god, angels, star alignments acting on people's thoughts and behaviors, miracles, etc.).

Again, if you cannot concede the obvious, there is no point in furthering the conversation.

[kiryan]

No kidding science meets the standard it used to define itself and religion does not meet science's standard. thats' hardly rocket science.

Intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory because its an untestable hypothesis. Again, defining something in favorable terms to "end the debate". Its a theory, and it could be true. I'm not in favor of swapping science class with religious class, but if we can include counter american viewpoints in history class, why can't we have counter science viewpoints in science class?

but yea we're never going to agree on that. You don't get to say X is legitimate because the definition of X precludes any other possibilty. Truth is truth whether it is "science" or discovered by consulting the stars. Whether you understand the physics of God yet or not. We could find out within a few years that linear nature of time does not exist, but up until that point you're going to call those researchers quacks because they can't test it.

[Sarvis]

No kidding science meets the standard it used to define itself and religion does not meet science's standard. thats' hardly rocket science.

Intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory because its an untestable hypothesis. Again, defining something in favorable terms to "end the debate". Its a theory, and it could be true. I'm not in favor of swapping science class with religious class, but if we can include counter american viewpoints in history class, why can't we have counter science viewpoints in science class?

Because that's not the same thing? Different viewpoints are not lies. How would you feel if your kids' history teacher spent a semester making everyone memorize the history of Lord of the Rings?

but yea we're never going to agree on that. You don't get to say X is legitimate because the definition of X precludes any other possibilty. Truth is truth whether it is "science" or discovered by consulting the stars. Whether you understand the physics of God yet or not. We could find out within a few years that linear nature of time does not exist, but up until that point you're going to call those researchers quacks because they can't test it.

The funny thing is, even if they did discover time wasn't linear you wouldn't believe them.

Kiryan: EVERYTHING in your world is created by science. You are alive today, right now, as you are because of science. You are attempting to call into question your entire reality. The validity of the scientific method has been shown again and again.

[Teflor Lyorian]

No, what I'm doing is drawing a line which exists in reality. And it really boils down to how deduction and induction is used within the two spheres of thought. And, if we cannot agree on this, then I don't see the discussion moving anywhere constructive.

Basically, religion is not disprovable, science is. That is the major difference. I can disprove Newton's laws of motion by virtue of the claims. I cannot disprove god by virtue of the claims. This is the fundamental demarcation of science, pseudoscience, and religion. The first can be disproved, the latter two cannot. Science uses logic to find the truth, while pseudoscience and religion use logic to find faith, as every line of thought in the two lead or are led from a premise or group of premises that are fundamentally disprovable (such as god, angels, star alignments acting on people's thoughts and behaviors, miracles, etc.).

Again, if you cannot concede the obvious, there is no point in furthering the conversation.

Drawing the line between deduction and induction is one issue, but it has nothing to do with religion and science. Aspects of religion have been disproven many times in the course of human history.

Frankly, I'm not sure of how this distinction is useful in the determination of the difference between immutable religious rights vs unalienable human rights.

[Ragorn]

Intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory because its an untestable hypothesis. Again, defining something in favorable terms to "end the debate". Its a theory, and it could be true. I'm not in favor of swapping science class with religious class, but if we can include counter american viewpoints in history class, why can't we have counter science viewpoints in science class?

We can, of course, have counter-science viewpoints in science class. However, it is not a good use of classroom time to discuss every claim made throughout history that cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method. Intelligent Design falls alongside alchemy, frenology, astrology, bloodletting, and reincarnation in terms of scientific rigor. All of these disciplines might very well be true, and it's absolutely correct to say that none of them can be conclusively disproven. However, the reason they're not taught in science class is that there is no observable evidence to support them either. And that's the baseline for inclusion into scientific discussion -- the observation of evidence. There are literally infinite theories that can be proposed sans evidence about how the universe works, and they are all equally invalid until observations can be made supporting them.

Proponents of intelligent design want an invalid argument introduced into science class for political reasons. And until the criteria for inclusion is met, the only regions that will support intelligent design are the regions where people embrace the religious/political ideology behind it. Currently, I think that's just one school district in one midwest state in one country on one continent on the planet.

Tides go in, tides go out... we can explain that.

[Sarvis]

Tides go in, tides go out... we can explain that.

Yes, clearly the moon is God!

[kiryan]

We can, of course, have counter-science viewpoints in science class. However, it is not a good use of classroom time to discuss every claim made throughout history that cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method.
...
Proponents of intelligent design want an invalid argument introduced into science class for political reasons. And until the criteria for inclusion is met, the only regions that will support intelligent design are the regions where people embrace the religious/political ideology behind it. Currently, I think that's just one school district in one midwest state in one country on one continent on the planet.

Glad you agree we could have some discussion of ID in science class. I agree its not a good use of time to teach every religious counterpoint ever conceived of in history... but we can at least talk about the hot topics, the prevailing theories.

Proponents want it taught because they believe it... and you're forgetting all the catholic schools and home schoolers. ID is far more widely taught than you understand.

[Sarvis]

I prefer to just say "A wizard did it" when I don't understand how something works. Easier that way, and less controversial. Someday maybe I'll become a politician and make that the standard curriculum so we can all have A's in science.

[Ragorn]

Glad you agree we could have some discussion of ID in science class. I agree its not a good use of time to teach every religious counterpoint ever conceived of in history... but we can at least talk about the hot topics, the prevailing theories.

Sure, we can have some discussion of ID in science class.. each teacher is free to explain to the students in his or her own words why it won't be taught :) Probably won't be time to entertain questions, but I guess students with questions about intelligent design can talk to their rabbi or imam if they want.

[kiryan]

fine, then we'll make it part of their credential and we'll create a new metric for teacher performance called: presentation of opposing ideas and grade them appropriately.

I would be fine with a 1 month course on evolution followed by a 1 day lesson that says.. ok another view, held primarily by Judeo Christians believe that some force made the Earth to appear like all this happened over billions of years when in fact it only happened over 6,000 years. This is not a scientific theory because its impossible to test or prove unless God appears and proves his existence. Creationists believe there are many flaws in the theory of evolution such as the missing link, the development of the eyeball, inaccuracies in carbon dating etc etc etc.

That would be good enough for me.

[Sarvis]

fine, then we'll make it part of their credential and we'll create a new metric for teacher performance called: presentation of opposing ideas and grade them appropriately.

I would be fine with a 1 month course on evolution followed by a 1 day lesson that says.. ok another view, held primarily by Judeo Christians believe that some force made the Earth to appear like all this happened over billions of years when in fact it only happened over 6,000 years. This is not a scientific theory because its impossible to test or prove unless God appears and proves his existence. Creationists believe there are many flaws in the theory of evolution such as the missing link, the development of the eyeball, inaccuracies in carbon dating etc etc etc.

That would be good enough for me.

Why should a theory that you admit "is not a scientific theory" be taught at all in a science class? And are you ok with presentation of Native American creation myths as well? Asian myths? Muslim? What if the science teacher pulled out a Koran and started teaching the "non-scientific" theory of how women are inferior and should be covered head to toe?

Science classes should stick to science. ID can be taught in a sociology course or something.

[kiryan]

ID has a lot of proponents in the USA. I think its fair to talk about it. If those other theories had as much public support, then I think it would be reasonable to talk about those too.

If nothing else, consider it "tolerance"... in the same way that teaching about homosexuality is tolerance.

[Sarvis]

ID has a lot of proponents in the USA. I think its fair to talk about it. If those other theories had as much public support, then I think it would be reasonable to talk about those too.

If nothing else, consider it "tolerance"... in the same way that teaching about homosexuality is tolerance.

Like I said, in sociology or social studies or whatever then fine. In science class it just doesn't belong.

[kiryan]

its a theory that supposes itself to compete with science. if you're going to discuss it, it should be in science class.

[Sarvis]

its a theory that supposes itself to compete with science. if you're going to discuss it, it should be in science class.

On what basis? Even you said it was not scientific. How can you want something that is not science to be taught in science class. Should we start pushing to have chemistry taught in Sunday school as well?

[kiryan]

When the federal government starts funding sunday school we can start talking about it.

Other than being unprovable, how is it not science?

[Sarvis]

When the federal government starts funding sunday school we can start talking about it.

Other than being unprovable, how is it not science?

"This is not a scientific theory" - Kiryan

You already said it wasn't, so now you get to justify teaching something you claimed is not science in science class.

I also want to teach that the earth is actually carried on the back of four elephants riding on a giant space turtle. (That's actually more scientific than ID since we can test by going into space and looking, btw.)

[kiryan]

ID is an unscientific theory that offers an alternative explanation to the scientific theory of evolution.

Why would you teach a competing view point in an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CLASS? don't be stupid. if you're going to teach it, it should be taught in science class... I accept its not science by the accepted definition of science. however, you remove that ONE principle and the approach and development of ID looks exactly like science. They postulated, theorized, look for evidence and proof in the fossil record, in the Bible... it is science for all intense and purpose.

[Sarvis]

ID is an unscientific theory that offers an alternative explanation to the scientific theory of evolution.

Why would you teach a competing view point in an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CLASS? don't be stupid. if you're going to teach it, it should be taught in science class... I accept its not science by the accepted definition of science. however, you remove that ONE principle and the approach and development of ID looks exactly like science. They postulated, theorized, look for evidence and proof in the fossil record, in the Bible... it is science for all intense and purpose.

Why would you teach something that isn't science in science class? Do you teach math in gym class? Ballet in history class? The fall of the Roman empire in Physics?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 26
3.Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The argument appears to be over.

[kiryan]

because you're presenting the opposing view held by many to something that is being taught in science class. If there were 12 people who believed in ID, I'd say it shouldn't be taught. There are however millions.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Science, when taught, should have links to the real world. People should understand why we have to weigh things and mix chemicals.

Ultimately, the body of science and the scientific method are tools that humans use to answer questions and to manipulate their environment. While questions about why the universe was formed are clearly outside of the realm of science, it is one of the unqiue questions that cause us to wonder and experiment in the first place.

Strictly speaking, it's inconcieveable that we could test the hypothesis of whether or not the universe was created by a conscious entity. But it's also inconcievable that we could test the hypothesis that capitalism is a better economic model than communism (do you happen to have a few million people and an artificial island where you can control all the variables for us to try this shit out? No? stfu. Do we even have similar environments where we can make observations by comparison? are you kididng?). Similarly, while hypothesizing how stars go supernova is science, we don't happen to have a star to test our theories upon (however, we can at least make observations and form more hypothesises).

Strictly speaking, creation just isn't within the scope of the modern scientific method. However, the way science relates to the rest of our existence IS important to what science was and will be.

[Sarvis]

because you're presenting the opposing view held by many to something that is being taught in science class. If there were 12 people who believed in ID, I'd say it shouldn't be taught. There are however millions.

Millions of people believe in psychic powers. Enough to keep tarot readers profitable, anyway. Should tarot be taught in science class as well?

[Kifle]

because you're presenting the opposing view held by many to something that is being taught in science class. If there were 12 people who believed in ID, I'd say it shouldn't be taught. There are however millions.

Millions of people believe in psychic powers. Enough to keep tarot readers profitable, anyway. Should tarot be taught in science class as well?

Yes, and I believe we should also implement a ghost hunting class as well. That's been really big as of late. Can we also dedicate classes to finding the lost city of atlantis, bigfoot, and the loch ness monster? I would also like to devote a class to astrology and teach my kids the powers of lucky numbers on the back of chinese fortune cookie fortunes. In all honesty, I don't think we have the budget to devote a class on this specifically, so we can lump most of them in the physics class and just throw out all that stuff about mechanics and astronomy -- everyone knows ghosts control the physical universe and the stars are just there to tell us how our days will go.

[Ragorn]

170 million people tuned in to "Dancing With the Stars" last year. Perhaps we should teach dancing in science class.

[kiryan]

and what scientific theory would dancing with the stars be refuting?

[Teflor Lyorian]

No, we should teach it because it is a human right. Furthermore, science can cone up against peoples' values. A good teacher should be able to either prove their argument conclusively or explain how the conflict can affect the student and their values. For example, presenting alternative viewpoints like intelligent design.

For a teacher and a school should educate, not indoctrinate.

[Kifle]

No, we should teach it because it is a human right. Furthermore, science can cone up against peoples' values. A good teacher should be able to either prove their argument conclusively or explain how the conflict can affect the student and their values. For example, presenting alternative viewpoints like intelligent design.

For a teacher and a school should educate, not indoctrinate.

And you guys get on liberals for the whole "inclusion" thing. Seriously, science class is for teaching science. Anything that isn't science does not belong in the science classroom. If you want to get ID into the school system, fight for a comparative religions course to be added.

There is one question you should ask when you are thinking about whether or not to add something to a science course: Is this a scientific theory? If the answer is no, move on.

As to arguing conclusively. Here's the only argument he'd need to make. ID is not a scientific theory; therefore, it does not belong here. Mooooving on. Do we really need to waste time in class for that? Second, the second we start catering to students' values, we will have to allow them individuality on a scope that isn't conducive to a learning environment. Don't forget, teenagers are generally anti-establishment retards that think they know everything.

Now, presenting alternative viewpoints. What would be the difference between offering the viewpoint of ID and offering the viewpoint that a mighty, purple, invisible dragon created all we see because he wished on a unicorn tear? There is absolutely no difference except some people actually believe that an invisible guy that lives in the clouds did the same thing sans the unicorn tear. If we start including non-scientific views in science classes, you'd end up having to offer them all. In the end, the science course would end up being a religious studies course. Fortunately, science is science, religion is religion, and they are separated in academia for a good reason -- so people actually learn things.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Next you're going to tell me math is math or English is English and doesn't belong in a science class. :roll:

[Kifle]

Next you're going to tell me math is math or English is English and doesn't belong in a science class. :roll:

Math goes and in hand with the hard sciences. English as a study does not belong in science unless we are talking about writing papers -- at which point it is not taught, but definitely a factor in grade. But, yeah, you're getting the idea.

[kiryan]

Its amazing, you guys can find every reason to be reasonable and consider practical reality in every thing you advocate, but can't find it reasonable to address the MOST COMMON beliefs/theory regarding human evolution on a technicality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/ ... 5223.shtml

Look at the article, roughly 80% of people in the USA believe either God created humans or God guided the evolution of humans.

51% believe God literally created humans exactly as is another 30% believe God guided evolution. Quit trying to compare it to the purple unicorn tears or the FSM. 80 fuking percent dick wads, thats enough to wield unlimited power via constitutional amendment. That is a scary # of people.

Based on these #s, it is not unreasonable to address ID in science class along with Darwinism with a clear disclaimer that ID is technically not Science.

You guys are being extremists.

[Kifle]

Its amazing, you guys can find every reason to be reasonable and consider practical reality in every thing you advocate, but can't find it reasonable to address the MOST COMMON beliefs/theory regarding human evolution on a technicality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/ ... 5223.shtml

Look at the article, roughly 80% of people in the USA believe either God created humans or God guided the evolution of humans.

51% believe God literally created humans exactly as is another 30% believe God guided evolution. Quit trying to compare it to the purple unicorn tears or the FSM. 80 fuking percent dick wads, thats enough to wield unlimited power via constitutional amendment. That is a scary # of people.

Based on these #s, it is not unreasonable to address ID in science class along with Darwinism with a clear disclaimer that ID is technically not Science.

You guys are being extremists.

I'm sure you'd find the same statistics of people who believed that the sun revolved around the earth too at the time before Galileo. Popular opinion of non-scientists is not an accurate way to gauge the validity of a theory.

Again, ask yourself this question: Is ID a scientific theory? If no, it does not belong in a class devoted to scientific theories. End of story. There is no argument. The best you can do is sidestep the facts and cry for your beliefs to be pushed into an arena they have no business being. It's just not going to happen and should never happen. Because, again, science is science, religion is religion. They don't get along very well intrinsically.

[kiryan]

I agree its not a scientific theory. Its formulated and researched like a scientific theory as competing with another scientific theory... but yes fundamentally it can never meet the definition of "science" because its untestable. That is the only reason it isn't science.

and despite its 99% like science and 80% of people believe its possible and it specifically counters something taught in science class, you want to teach it in religion class.

That seems unreasonable.

80%. You can do a lot with statistics... maybe its 70% or 65%... its not 5%. Thats a lot of damn people dude. I'm not saying make ID science, I'm saying its reasonable to discuss it in Science class because people want it taught in science class. Schools exist to educate our children as the people decide, specifically local school boards.... not as scientists or professional educators decide. As people, as parents decide. The 20% don't get unlimited right to decide what is taught to our kids.

[Sarvis]

Its amazing, you guys can find every reason to be reasonable and consider practical reality in every thing you advocate, but can't find it reasonable to address the MOST COMMON beliefs/theory regarding human evolution on a technicality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/ ... 5223.shtml

One could say the entire point of science classes is to disavow people of such ridiculousness.

That is a scary # of people.

Yes, it is. A number we'd like to see shrink by presenting actual facts and evidence, rather than reinforcing their myths.

... science class along ... technically not Science.

Not science. NOT science. Even according to you. Look, this is simple: The facts should be taught in science class. The facts are:

1) we have a fossil record that shows relatively clear paths of evolution.
2) We can see genetic mutation occurring and resulting in new physical features in a species
3) We can even control that mutation enough through selective breeding to create wide variances within species. (off topic: wonder if we could do it enough ourselves to create a new species?)


So we know that thos mutations happen, and we theorize that the mutations over millions of years create new species.

Now, here is the important part: We think the mutations are random, and you think God did it. But functionally there is no difference. That is to say, we can't tell if God did it or if it was random. (My money's on "got too close to a uranium vein." )

So frankly, it might be best to teach that mutations happen but no one is sure why. But to say God did it violates the whole "Separation of Church and State" thing you like to ignore when convenient. Furthermore, even if 81% of people believe in it you are forcing your beliefs on the other 19% of people who believe something else. Again, how would you like your science test to include questions like "How does the First Noble Truth guide evolution?" Bet you'd be a little upset that some Chink was impressing his religion on your kids, right?

So let's stick with what science is. Teach what we observe happening and present the evidence. God, no God.. frankly doesn't make a difference to the theory. It's just Christians wanting to make sure everyone is Christian by forcing their beliefs down our throat.

You guys are being extremists.

You're the one trying to force our kids to learn your beliefs.

[kiryan]

BTW, the theory of ID does not claim the judeo christian God did it, just some intelligent force. ID would be proven correct if aliens directed evolution. but why would i expect you to know anything about somethign your 100% sure is impossibly wrong.

BTW, do you know ANY of the arguments against evolution? Do you know what neo darwinism is or point gap evolution? Do you know any of the criticisms of carbon dating?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Education is about forming the mind. If you beat every mind as if it were the same, you're not educating, you're indoctrinating.

You can have 100% scientific integrity while still both acknowledging and respecting (most) modern religious beliefs (which are pretty amenable to science and fact anyway). If you don't, you're simply lazy or trying to push an unsubstantiated belief onto other people, probably because you are a stupid ass. If you have a class of children that are very religious and your lesson plan can potentially butt up against their beliefs, as an educator, you have a duty not only to respect the wishes of the parents of the children (as a universally declared human right), you also have a duty to actually educate them - help them reconcile philosophy with fact.

There are times that, what is observed in science, can be both confusing or come into conflict with what people believe. It's really not that hard to understand that science does not attempt to explain how the universe was created. Intelligent design is an philosophical idea that can reconcile science and religion without disturbing or distorting science in the least bit. If a child asks in class: "but I thought god created the universe," it's really not hard to respond scientifically: that man has no way currently of using the scientific method to prove nor disprove that an intelligence created existence.

In summary: it's not hard to actually teach the children. Math and English are in Science because they are a part of an education (which is why a science teacher will mark down for grammar or spelling on a science paper, so it is taught). Education is not a subject, but the formation of a young mind. Philosophy is an important part of science, even though modern science does not attempt to explain how existence came into being, because it is a part of that mind.

And importantly, because you simply can't prove that it's not true.

[kiryan]

[quote="Ragorn"] Intelligent Design falls alongside alchemy, frenology, astrology, bloodletting, and reincarnation in terms of scientific rigor. [/ragorn]

Interestingly enough, here is an article on "alchemy" starting to be formally recognized as the precusor to the science of what we now call chemistry. Apparently many alchemists practiced good scientific methods and processes... sure there were some charlatans... (today we call them environmentalists)... but Alchemists' work was very obviously developing the science of chemistry.

Interesting, isn't that what you said shouldn't be taught? I wonder what else you're wrong about.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/ ... tists-say/

[Sarvis]

Intelligent Design falls alongside alchemy, frenology, astrology, bloodletting, and reincarnation in terms of scientific rigor. [/ragorn]

Interestingly enough, here is an article on "alchemy" starting to be formally recognized as the precusor to the science of what we now call chemistry. Apparently many alchemists practiced good scientific methods and processes... sure there were some charlatans... (today we call them environmentalists)... but Alchemists' work was very obviously developing the science of chemistry.

Interesting, isn't that what you said shouldn't be taught? I wonder what else you're wrong about.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/ ... tists-say/

You might notice there are no longer any alchemists.

[kiryan]

Actually they do, its called CHEMISTRY. maybe you missed that.

I suppose under your logic if we wanted to talk about the precursors to Chemistry, we cover alchemy in history / religion class... instead of say starting out the unit on chemistry by talking about how it originated.

[Sarvis]

Actually they do, its called CHEMISTRY. maybe you missed that.

I suppose under your logic if we wanted to talk about the precursors to Chemistry, we cover alchemy in history / religion class... instead of say starting out the unit on chemistry by talking about how it originated.

You do realize that chemistry and alchemy aren't the same thing, right? There may be some valid techniques taken from alchemy, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

And yes, alchemy was covered in my history class.

[kiryan]

You do realize that Ragorn lumped alchmey in with crazy town illegitimate crap that should not be discussed in school in science class... when there is growing support to recognize alchemy as the earliest chemists?

What we have here is a name change and a ignorant and prejudiced view (Ragorn).

[Sarvis]

You do realize that Ragorn lumped alchmey in with crazy town illegitimate crap that should not be discussed in school in science class... when there is growing support to recognize alchemy as the earliest chemists?

What we have here is a name change and a ignorant and prejudiced view (Ragorn).

Alchemy was the attempt to turn lead into gold. It's not physically possible, any more than talking to the dead is. That alchemists developed some techniques that would later be used by chemists does not put them on the same level of validity.

[kiryan]

From the article you obviously didn't read. Alchemy is beign accepted into journals DEVOTED to the HISTORY of SCIENCE.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/ ... tists-say/

But the scholars who write the history of science and technology no longer lump alchemy in with witchcraft as a pseudo-science.

Instead they see alchemy as the proper precursor to modern chemistry.

The modern word "alchemy" comes from the Arabic word "al kemia," which incorporated a spectrum of knowledge of chemical properties and practices from ancient times
...
Principe said that just in the past 30 years articles about alchemy were being accepted into Isis, one of the leading journals devoted to the history of science. Before that a prohibition on alchemical subjects had been in place.
...
Alchemists did something more important than make new gold. They were instrumental in the development of many technologies during pre-modern times in Europe. For example, alchemists could be considered as an early form of industrial researcher. William Newman of the University of Indiana points out that alchemists "integrated a host of pursuits that can be loosely labeled 'chemical technologies' with an experimental practice that was linked to various theories about the nature and operations of minerals and metals."
...
Newman provides plenty of examples. Alchemists, he says, were active in assaying metals, refining salts, making dyes and pigments, making glass and ceramics, artificial fertilizers, perfumes, and cosmetics. An alchemists' shop was often the place in a town where you would go for medicine. Even today in many parts of Europe you go to "the chemist," for medicine, rather than to a "drug store."
...
The career of Robert Boyle illustrates the new, more respectful, view of alchemy. Boyle was long considered to be the first major modern chemist, one whose quantitative and careful laboratory practice made him the supposed antithesis of alchemy. But some 17th century documents, fully interpreted by Principe for the first time, show that Boyle was an avid alchemy practitioner.

So was the man often cited as the father of modern physics, Isaac Newton.

[Ragorn]

You do realize that Ragorn lumped alchmey in with crazy town illegitimate crap that should not be discussed in school in science class... when there is growing support to recognize alchemy as the earliest chemists?

What we have here is a name change and a ignorant and prejudiced view (Ragorn).

If you want to teach Alchemy as the precursor to science, you teach that in HISTORY class, not SCIENCE class :)

[Sarvis]

Right, that too. Generally you don't learn a lot of the history of a science in science classes. In chemistry you start with the periodic table, and move on from there.