yep. forget the penicillin, bring back the leeches.

Call me old fashioned but I thought education was about the search for truth. Simply baptizing all culture as worthwhile will lead us into the study of witchcraft along side inorganic chemistry. Certainly the pose of scientists that they alone know truth is fanciful and the subsequent relegation to the margins of other forms of knowledge ruinous. But we do have the powers of discernment as to what is the truth and what is not. If we forsake that then all is lost. We do know that penicillin works and leeches do not. We also know that superstitious religion is a pandering to the human ego and some of us know that Christian faith is deeper than that.

Our aim is not unlimited freedom. That does not exist and the pursuit of it and the abandonment of the critical faculty would produce curricula crowded with rubbish. Let us not abandon the search for the truth and substitute it with an empty idea of freedom.
Peter Sellick

my mistake. forget the leeches. bring back the exorcisms.

I agree with Andrew Baker

Way back in 1932 (it could have been 1934) Einstein gave an address to the Academy of Science in which he said that the failure of Euclidean mathematics in the 19th century was that it sought to determine logically what must be instead of observing what is. Reason has it place but most things are not reasonable, they simply the way there are. Anyone who seeks to find truth through reason is doomed to failure.

The central questions of Science. Who am I? How did I get here? Why am I here?
The central questions of Religion. Who am I? How did I get here? Why am I here?
The central question of Philosophy. Who am I? How did I get here? Why am I here?

There is no reasonable answer to any of those questions. Science, religion and philosophy all have there place in exploring the 3 questions from different angles. As soon as we claim any to be right because it is reasonable it is the end of the line because nobody can progress past being right.

Our education system is about passing exams. This encourages students to learn lots of facts, but do they understand what the facts mean? Where in our education system is there the encouragement for our students to learn to think

Sells...there is no such thing as truth, the world is far too complex. The scholarship of the 20th century has well and truely put paid to the antiquated religious myth of a single all pervading truth.

But anyway, I would like my children to be educated please, not indoctrinated. I know it is difficult for Christians and other religious dependents to even imagine freedom, locked as they are in the prisons of their dogma. But please do not assume that your individual beliefs or experience is a recipe for everyone, it isn't.

Its only with science that society has advanced itself. Science deals in evidence, and facts.

Religion deals in supernatural-inspired texts and supernatural dogma.

We pay more for religion than science. Religion in our country pays no council rates, no motor rego, no stamp duty when dealing in property, no income tax, receives GST input credit, receives M4/M5 cashbacks in Sydney, the list goes on.

To the tune of billions, we pay for religion through increased taxation and having to forgo proper services the money could have alternately funded.

Where does Andrew Baker stand on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)? Given his teaching post and the alarmist dogma that is taught at educational institutions, one suspects that he believes in AGW. If he has any irrefutable scientific evidence to substantiate AGW, let him share it with us. No one else has been able to do so, as yet.

E.Sykes,
Unfortunately you post contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is obviously pointless...

You claim there is no truth (a truth claim itself, so obviously irrational and wrong), and then proceed to make a series of truth claims about religion, freedom and dogma.

Now if that is how you plan to 'educate' your children, well, the poor kids are in for a pretty crippling time...

Andrew,

The issue is not whether different voices or opinions are heard it is a question of "time management". Of course we want to hear what others have to say about the important (and unimportant) questions but I do not have the time to consider them all equally. We have to make choices and decisions on which views and ideas to listen to because there is not enough time.

Equally we have to make choices and decisions for our children. For example, meteorology has proven to be good at short term weather predictions and better than predicting weather by reading tea leaves. We should teach the ideas that have proven to be the most useful while still allowing some time to consider a smattering of other less proven ideas to leaven the mix.

The danger comes from trying to give everything - regardless of our experience - equal time.

If Feyeraband and Baker can't tell the difference between religion and science they simply reveal their ignorance of science. It's true, as Thomas Kuhn and others have noted, that there are irrational components in scientific thinking (especially the creative process of conceiving a hypothesis), and it's true that scientists are fallible human beings who slip into irrational judgements easily enough. Nevertheless science does refer to observations of the world to verify its theories, and competition among scientists tends to ensure that poorly justified theories are displaced, sooner or later.

Over the long haul these attributes have led to huge changes of scientific views, and of society's views. It has led to a rich and deep understanding of how the world works. This understanding complements ancient wisdom, and it displaces many superstitions.

On the other hand organised religions tend to have a core of old wisdom with a large encrustation of superstitions. They perpetuate both indiscriminately and have not noticably changed, nor noticably advanced their (compromised) contribution to society over the past couple of centuries.

While many scientific advances have occurred through challenging accepted scientific interpretations of information, the extreme of accepting all belief systems as valid is ludicrous.

The search for truth is not achieved by abandoning reason.

Did I read that right...Astrology is just as valuable as science? What about diving the future from animal entrails, Hey you could combine it with dissection in biology class. The fact that the Author took anything written by Feyerabend with anything more then a grain of salt says a lot.

Give me the scientific method any day, that mode of thinking has proven it's self to be infinitely better at producing real results then any other.

“…..the greatest shifts in scientific thinking from Copernicus to Galileo to Newton were not based solely on reason, science’s golden rule”.

Yes Andrew, some great advances in science were made by researchers and thinkers who could not clear their thinking of their past indoctrination so their work was not based solely on reason.

But how much more quickly could human knowledge have advanced had the indoctrination not been present. One post advocates teaching children to think clearly and some schools around the world are achieving this aim much better than are most Australian schools. Buranda State School in Queensland is an exception and Clackmannan schools in Scotland are really showing the way with a 6.5% improvement in cognitive ability after just one year of a different teaching subject with a significant improvement in classroom behaviour as a bonus.

Look at http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/council/press/?release=1024.

Foyle

I commented earlier on this article and mentioned the succes of some school, particularly at Clackmannan in Scotland, at improving the cognitive ability ( thinking ability) of young students. I intended to post the following link but could not find it at the time.

http://www.rotherham-gt.co.uk/docs/p4c/impact2.doc

WTF?

What next?
Tell me Johnny – what do you FEEL about the notion of evolution?
I don’t understand it. Did god make everything?
Hmmm – I’ll give you an E for scientific thinking and an A for feelings.
Now that will even out as a C.
Congratulations! You’ve passed Science

I entirely agree with Andrew Baker when he says, “The multifaceted characteristics of science remain poorly understood.” Many reduce science and the ‘scientific method’ to mere ‘scientism’ or scientific materialism. Unlike Kant, Nietzsche took the poison pill of scientific materialism with all the steely-willed resolve of the uebermensch, whom he portrayed as the savior of the world. Nietzsche was indeed a nihilist (by denying that we can rationally affirm our intellectual or moral judgments) – but at least he was honest in that scientific materialism, if one is brutally self-aware, leads to nihilism. Despite this confusion, however, (brought about by relativism) there lurks in the human heart a deep need for what we might call objective truth and the secure possession of it. One needs to initially accept all persons and groups have agendas, and identifiable groups inevitably make truth-claims.

Interestingly, Paul Feyerabend said that “In the age of Galileo the Church showed to be more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The trial against Galileo was reasonable and just.” Galileo certainly was not doing empirical science as we understand it today. He could not demonstrate empirically that his theories were supportable – he was being too imaginative and ‘unreasonable’ for his day with the 'rational' Church eventually proved wrong.

That the archaic age of myth gave way to the philosophical ‘enlightenment’ of the European world is precisely why the role of imagination suffered. The so-called primitive minds of less rational ‘barbaric’ societies - no less women, children, and (of course) the insane were downgraded. The slow devaluation of imagination culminated with Locke and the empiricists.

Quite ironically it was Plato, when writing in one of the most imaginative styles ever, who initiated the Western tradition of viewing imagination as the lowest form of knowledge and not to be trusted. Kant reversed this trend toward denigrating the imagination and accorded it a great metaphysical significance. Religion in our schools (as secular as they be), as inferred by Baker, is therefore more a far healthy and open-minded outcome – it antithesis I would view as trending toward the oppressive,shallow and unimaginative.

All,

One particular aspect on which science and religion differ is questionability. In science, propositions exist to be tested. No one is not meant, to sit on their laurels. Contrarily, religious others live by their creed.

Einstein admitted errors in context with the Gravitation constant and QM phenomena in his life time. The Catholic Church took four hundred years to recognize that Galileo was correct regarding his observations confirming Copernicus. No doubt, there are various schools of thought in science, yet these “alternatives” function to challenge and to progress disciplines.

Scientists might argue over the effects of, asymmetry during the Big Bang fifteen billion years ago on the senescent universe hundreds of billions from now. On the other hand, Christians have pretty much settled on the idea that Jesus Christ was divine and that there is a trinity, barely acknowledging that there was a period of debate on these issues for several generations before and after Nicaea.

With science, often, there is recognition of a new “superior” theory over the old, say, the Solid State Universe yields to the Big Bang. There is a paradigm shift sometimes occurring within a decade. On the hand; while, a few clerics do swap sides across religious divides; we don’t have modern Christians, Jews and Muslims moving “all together” to designate a new “superior” faith. Yet, scientists will do exactly that. “I can now rejoice even in the falsification of a cherished theory, because even this is a scientific success” (Sir John Eccles). Even if Abraham's God exists, and the higher religions are mere approximations; Christians, Muslims and Jews are happy with their exclusive part of the elephant.

Sells,

Perhaps, neither modern science nor religion, are strict advocates of the Truth. The former dealing with tentative truth-like posits or, verisimilitudes (Popper). The latter with “many lies similar to the truth”, i.e., etumoisin homoi (Homer).

Science often “addresses,” whereas religion simply “dresses”. The scientist applies probability and is objective; the cleric applies mimesis (Plato) and reinforcement (Skinner). One studies a bug “through a microscope” (object of study outside); another “lives ‘in’ Jesus” (inside object).

Most parents want their children educated to help their chances of employment. When people start chuntering about education for 'truth', they usually mean a jolly good brainwashing in their idea of 'truth'. And, sadly, that's what we have in our education system - we are turning out brainwashed kids who can't get jobs.

Leave truth and personal development to individualas and to families to work out.

I quite like this article, except for Baker's implicit assertion that Science is epistemologically the equivalent of religion, i.e. a 'belief system'. While Feyerabend was quite correct that there is much more to science than 'reason' and the scientific method, I think that he would turn in his grave if he heard that someone was arguing for science education to be subsumed into some kind of nebulous 'Human Belief Systems' subject.

As Baker should be aware, stand-alone science subjects at secondary level are already packed with concepts, theories and facts that are necessary prerequisites, both for studying any of the sciences at a higher level, or even understanding contemporary debates that centre on science (e.g. AGW). By all means introduce a subject about compararative belief systems or religions in which science could be a topic, but to relegate the status of modern science to the equivalent of astrology or relgion would be to do its students a grave disservice, IMHO.

I know only a few truths such as when I cut I will bleed or when I drop a bloody great rock on my foot it will hurt.

The rest are just opinions. Someone's truth will be another's falsehood. Someone's God will be somebody else's false idol.

Religion and science are not the same thing as much as some would cast them in the same basket. Unlike science I have never seen religion adapt or review in light of new evidence.

How is 'truth' defined and who will define it? Can truth be pure? For purity in truth to be obtained surely it can only be done within a neutral environment free of self-fulfilling prophecies.

Scientific advancement migh require some pre-conception, but I would choose science over religion anytime because science,at its heart, seeks 'truth' (if we must use that term) by being open to new ideas or approaches and seeks evidence. Science is willing to change in the face of new evidence or new discoveries.

Religion by its nature cannot. This is not to argue that humans are not spiritual in terms of our need to seek connections with other people and our environment but that it is folly to use the idea of 'truth' in that sphere.

For me (as I can only speak for myself), the only real truth in our value systems is OUTCOME. The set of values by which we live our lives and how we value and display kindness, compassion, hard work, integrity etc. I don't care how each individual achieves that OUTCOME and as individuals maybe it is destined that we come to it in different ways (if we come to it at all).

"Scientists might argue over the effects of, asymmetry during the Big Bang fifteen billion years ago on the senescent universe hundreds of billions from now. On the other hand, Christians have pretty much settled on the idea that Jesus Christ was divine and that there is a trinity, barely acknowledging that there was a period of debate on these issues for several generations before and after Nicaea."

Scientists debate theories because new facts are have to be incorporated into them. Religion is free of that problem, so it can opt for whatever is acceptable at the time. (Do you clip your beard, Peter? Because Leviticus 19:27 is pretty clear that's a no-no. Or have Christians now 'settled' that this is a misprint?)

Of course Baker's basic point is valid: you either believe in the methods of science or you don't. What he and all the other subjectivist commentators overlook, however, is we have a good reason to believe in science, because science WORKS.

Science has given us cars, aeroplanes, central heating, air conditioning, refrigeration, sanitation, computers, insulation, the Internet, wonder drugs, spacecraft, television and ballpoint pens.

Religion, spirituality and mystic woo has given us... what, exactly?

The moment science stops working then I promise to stop believing in it. And, Peter, the moment your God (acting directly, mind you, with one of his limitless supernatural powers, not hiding behind someone else) cures my toothache or fixes my superannuation fund will be the moment I will start believing in HIM.

But I'm not holding my breath.

There is not going to be a great deal of agreement on this topic, I sense, until some baseline definitions are agreed upon.

And I suspect there will be ice-skating in Hades before that happens.

Sells, typically, fires the first dogmatic salvo.

>>Call me old fashioned but I thought education was about the search for truth.<<

If you really were "old-fashioned", Sells, you would recall that education was the means by which people were told what that truth is.

All this "search for truth" malarkey is distinctly modern.

I cannot recall, during my own education, a great deal of discussion about "truth".

We dutifully consumed and regurgitated "facts" in order to gain a pass mark in whatever subject happened to be placed in front of us.

No correspondence was entered into.

We were "taught" that Wellington won at Waterloo thanks to some incredible bravery against an onslaught from the Old Guard.

Prussians have a different view that has something to do with von Blücher outflanking Grouchy at Wavre.

And the French ascribe it to the fact that Napoleon was fat, tired and suffering badly from haemorroids.

Different schools, different facts.

If we really did want education to be a search for truth, Sells wouldn't be so dogmatic about what religion - or indeed, which particular interpretation of one religion among many - actually represents truth.

Much as he should not be so dogmatic about leeches.

>>We do know that penicillin works and leeches do not.<<

http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/archive/2002/mystery/leeches.html

One man's truth is another's transient hypothesis.

Now that's a description - not a definition, note - that we can all agree upon.

I tend to agree with this article. Like it or not, religion has played a dominant role in the history of humanity, and fully deserves to be studied.
Just as no self respecting scientist would consider just one theory on any subject, and refuse to even consider rival theories, students should have the right to learn about all theories of God/divinity/supernature.
There is no doubt in my mind the very first priests/witchdoctors/shamans were scientists in their own way; I've always thought Dawkins would have made a very good priest.
Children should be encouraged to explore all religions, and decide for themselves which one makes sense to them (if any), instead of being told "this is your religion, accept it and shutup".
Just to throw the cat into the henhouse, how many households also say "we vote Labor (or Liberal), accept it and shutup"?

Well, I suppose we could teach children about the variety of human belief systems that have existed. We could also teach them how those systems, with one stand-out exception, have been abject failures. Then we could ask the children which system they want to learn more about - the failures, or the success story?

Shouldn't take long to get an answer.

Speaking of Truth these sets of essays provide a unique template for the assessment of every point of view.

1. http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon

Plus the two essays on this reference give a unique perspective of the limitations of scientism, and why conventional exoteric religiosity cannot successfully counter the culture created in the image of scientism.

1. http://aboutadidam.org/newsletters/toc-february2004.html

Plus 2 related essays on the absurdity of searching for the Truth. Absurd because the Truth is the condition of everything right now, and thus all of the time while you are seeking IT.

1. http://www.dabase.org/search.htm
2. http://www.dabase.org/rgcbpobk.htm

Reading through the posts on this one there seems to be something wrong. The article and responses don't seem to match. I fear there is a technical error in which the posts to another article are somehow ending up here

Jon J
"Science has given us cars, aeroplanes, central heating, air conditioning, refrigeration, sanitation, computers, insulation, the Internet, wonder drugs, spacecraft, television and ballpoint pens.

Religion, spirituality and mystic woo has given us... what, exactly?"

Science

Sylvia, I assume you're referring to Islam?

I kind of liked the fact that I recieved "religious education" in school. It allowed me to compare the scientific approach to the religious one. Whilst science is humble and self-correcting, religion is dogmatic and uses "debating technique" to survive.
Science is the tool of the person who wants to get things done, religion is the tool of person who wants safety and comfort.
Children just need to be given a fair comparison, something they are *not* getting in religious schools where they are actually lied to with regards science. The commonly heard "argument" is: "I can't imagine how evolution works, so it is not credible". The hubris!
What they "teach" about science is based on profoud misunderstanding and ignorance. Building and burning strawmen is not education, it is evil brain washing.
The fact that reality is complex, so science must be equally complex is bad news for the "if I can't comprehend it immediately it cannot be important" brigade.
Hey, dumb kids have to have some intellectual pursuit, and I truly believe that stupidity plus large egos and a sense of entitlement is a large part of the religion phenonemon.

i smell a fair amount of devil's advocacy in this thread.

baker's (feyerabend's) point that scientific method is no sterile, robotic logical practice is fair enough. it would be hugely helpful for students to get an honest sense of the nature of scientific progress.

but there is such a thing as scientific progress. the genuine philosophical debate about scientific method is no excuse to demean the pragmatic reality of scientific truth. for baker to reduce scientific truth to simply another "belief system" is ludicrous.

Jon J wrote: "Science has given us cars, aeroplanes, central heating, air conditioning, refrigeration, sanitation, computers, insulation, the Internet, wonder drugs, spacecraft, television and ballpoint pens.

Religion, spirituality and mystic woo has given us... what, exactly?"

Grey replies: “Science”

The important difference here though, is that science was required for us to invent cars, aeroplanes, etc.

The study of science, on the other hand, didn't need religion to happen.

The 'Orderly Creator' argument is a logical fallacy.

As Ozandy says above, science is a tool. To treat science in school as a doctrinal body of "facts" in opposition to an alternative religious body of "facts" is to misrepresent both religion and science in a student's mind, opening the way for him or her to choose a preferred explanation of the world based on personal tastes.

No surprise then that so many graduates come out of university with a "science degree" but no clue about what science is, although they may have a very sophisticated understanding of a technology and its underlying theory.

A religion, too, is many things, not just an authoritative creation story. Some people find that aspect very important, some see it more as a way to live life in a confusing world, some see it as a way of coming to grips with the inconceivableness of impending death, and some see it as the heart of a people's culture, which may mean a lot even to those who don't believe in the supernatural.

So yes, I am in favour of teaching both science and comparative religion, but do it properly, not from the banal, limited aspect of a contest for explaining how the world was made.

AdamD,
Jon J did not ask what was required, only what had. hence my short response is really all that is necessary, and your response is a red herring.

Feel free to ignore evidence from history if you like, but modern science is a creation of the Judaic faiths.

grey, why do you give so much credit to the judaic faiths? they were all-powerful for thousands of years before the scientific revolution. why so slow?

Bushbasher 'they were all-powerful for thousands of years before the scientific revolution'
Um...this is kind of hard to back up if you look at history.

grey...science was invented by people not religion. people also invented religion of course. and BTW/ Islam has a heretage of scientific investigations equalling any other faith and surpassing many.

E.Sykes,
You’ve come out with this banal statement, “There is no truth, the world is too complex.” Can’t you see how such a statement nullifies and undermines anything you might say which follows? There is no possibility of continuing after that.

I think a number of people here have missed the boat in interpreting the discussion as science versus religion, as if the two were in competition. They seem worried that religion will supplant science in the science classroom. I don’t think that was Baker’s idea at all.

I think he was recognising that science and logic never operate in a vacuum. There is always the human element. Our scientific traditions and methods didn’t fall into our laps from heaven. They were the culmination of centuries of ideas and threads from philosophies and religions. Science is the flower, and dependent on its roots, stems, and leaves.

Flowers die pretty quickly once removed from the stem. Likewise science will die if removed from the philosophies and traditions that have undergirded it.

As I said earlier, you can’t ask a student to learn the periodic table if you’ve first told them “There is no truth, the world is too complex.” That is self defeating. The child will (rightly) answer, well, why should I bother?

E.Sykes,
Science was invented by religious people. Religious people from the Judaic tradition, which had a very particular worldview. Your attempts to resolve everything to being created by man is a pathetically transparent red herring.