2½ puzzles: intelligent design, oil & (maybe) particle physics science & public policy...
Post on 04-Jan-2016
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2½ Puzzles:Intelligent Design, Oil & (Maybe) Particle Physics
Science & Public PolicyStephen M. MaurerJan. 19 2006 - Lecture 1
Introduction
Science Interacts With Society…Courts Use ScienceDecisionmakers Use ScienceSociety Invests in Science
A Mismatch: Ways of KnowingThe Need to Decide
Courts vs. Science
Outcomes vs. Process
The Public DebateEvolution is Right, ID is wrong
A (Naïve?) Policy GoalTeach the Truth!
Courts vs. Science
The Law“[W]e find that while ID arguments may be true, a
proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”
“ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory.” [82]
Courts vs. Science
The Law“To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation.” [89]
Why the Hesitation?
Science rejects supernatural explanations because of “the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extensions, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence.” [65]
“Ground rules” of Science (The Scientific Method): Observe, test, replicate, and verify. [65]
Testable and Falsifiable [22]
Must have “quantitative” rather than “subjective” criteria.
But…Not Everything Can Be Replicated or QuantifiedThe Evidence is Always IncompleteTheories are Never Proven
Ways of Knowing: Science
Courts Must Decide!Courts Don’t Feel CompetentCourts Shouldn’t Supplant ScienceJudging Credibility
Ways of Knowing: Courts
The Dispute
Dover School Board Policy:
“Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”
Doctrine
The Endorsement Test: “Whether an objective observer, acquainted with the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, would perceive it as a state endorsement [of religion].”
The Endorsement Test ctd:Conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred [15]
Doctrine
Drawing a Line Between Science and Religion
Doctrine
Religion, Not Science?
(1) “ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.” [65]
Science rejects supernatural explanations because of “the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extensions, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence.” [65]
As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter ‘NAS’) was recognized by experts for both parties as the ‘most prestigious’ scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate.” [65]
ID is rejected by an “overwhelming number of scientists.” [83]
(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s.
Is pointing out flaws in a theory sufficient?
Religion, Not Science?
(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
ID uses “outdated concepts and badly flawed science…” [86]
Religion, Not Science?
“An Objective Observer Would Know that … Teaching About ‘Gaps’ and ‘Problems’ in Evolutionary Theory are … Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism” [18]
“Actual purpose to prove or disprove religion.” [91]
Religion, Not Science?
Examples:Taking the character of the advocates into consideration“The tactically unnamed designer is God”Rewriting the Pandas book to conform to court decisionsHidden subsidies for the Pandas bookThe Wedge DocumentTactics: Change the ground rules, postpone tough
arguments.Political discourse“Theory not fact” has a “cultural meaning.”
Religion, Not Science?
Shooting the Messenger
Can We Teach The Solar Carbon Cycle?
Religion, Not Science?
Oil
Winston Churchill (1911)US Navy (1911)
Teapot Dome/Strategic Petroleum ReserveM. King Hubbert (1956)
Paul Ehrlich and The Club of Rome (1971)
Current Estimates 10 years or 50?1350 billion barrels (1969) vs. 3021 billion (2000)
Predictions
Oil:The Hubbert Curve
Why Geologists Believe the Hubbert CurveExample: US Exploration
Why Economists Don’t.Examples: Nazi Germany, Saudi Exploration, Capital Markets
Who’s Right?
Oil:The Hubbert Curve
Implications for Politics“Finding a billion barrels here and a
billion barrels there doesn’t change the nature of the argument.”
– World Resources Institute
Implications for Policy“It doesn’t matter when the oil runs out, it’s going to run out eventually.”
– Steven Chu
The Higgs Particle:Science
InertiaAristotle’s ArrowThe Higgs Particle
Superconducting Supercollider
LHC
New Machines?
The Higgs Particle:Politics
What Does the Community Want?…and is that “optimal”?
The Physics and Security
Spreading Contracts AroundTexas vs. California
The Higgs Particle:Justifications
Spin-OffsPrestige
Recruitment
DOE’s MissionDoing Science
Sid Drell
top related