Comments on: Flacks http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:35:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Cycle Quark » It’s Intelligent Design Day http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-12117 Cycle Quark » It’s Intelligent Design Day Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:09:56 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-12117 [...] Over at Cosmic Variance, Sean writes about an interesting biology course taught at Central Washington University. Instead of just talking about facts that scientists have learned. The class tries to address what science is and how it is conducted. As part of this strategy, intelligent design and the problems with treating inteligent design as science are discussed. [...] [...] Over at Cosmic Variance, Sean writes about an interesting biology course taught at Central Washington University. Instead of just talking about facts that scientists have learned. The class tries to address what science is and how it is conducted. As part of this strategy, intelligent design and the problems with treating inteligent design as science are discussed. [...]

]]> By: Dissident http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8602 Dissident Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:12:32 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8602 MobyDikc wrote: "Public education ignores the concepts of critical thinking until way too late." And now for the ten million dollar question: can you guess why? MobyDikc wrote: “Public education ignores the concepts of critical thinking until way too late.”

And now for the ten million dollar question: can you guess why?

]]> By: MobyDikc http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8547 MobyDikc Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:13:44 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8547 A better idea, instead of loading the issue with something like evolution vrs creationism, is to take a much more general approach to teaching America's youth critical reasoning skills. I've been writing about this for a while: <blockquote> The first is adding "critical reasoning" to the curriculum in elementary schools. We do not need a rigorous course on logic, but I suggest that we add a course to the 4th Grade curriculum that describes basic logical fallacies. As simple as how to detect bandwagon, slippery slope, and strawman arguments in every day life. This is of course an effective tool for a child in a society bombarded by marketing and mass media piped in to the young ming through television and the internet, but there is another reason to require this course at such an age. Identifying fallacious reasoning requires the understanding of what was communicated, or in other words, encourages thoughtfulness. If the child who is encouraged to think about what has been commnicated applies this skill to the rest of their school work, all of our efforts and resources as educators will result in a higher return. </blockquote> Right now the public education sector in the US thinks its just fine to wait until freshmen year of college to introduce you to logical fallacies and basic critical reasoning. Huh? Does anyone wonder why private schools do this much earlier on? I don't. It seems pretty obvious. Public education ignores the concepts of critical thinking until way too late. Those in acadamia should be clammoring for their local school boards to add critical thinking to elementary curriculums. A better idea, instead of loading the issue with something like evolution vrs creationism, is to take a much more general approach to teaching America’s youth critical reasoning skills. I’ve been writing about this for a while:

The first is adding “critical reasoning” to the curriculum in
elementary schools. We do not need a rigorous course on logic, but I
suggest that we add a course to the 4th Grade curriculum that describes
basic logical fallacies. As simple as how to detect bandwagon, slippery
slope, and strawman arguments in every day life.

This is of course an effective tool for a child in a society bombarded
by marketing and mass media piped in to the young ming through
television and the internet, but there is another reason to require
this course at such an age. Identifying fallacious reasoning requires
the understanding of what was communicated, or in other words,
encourages thoughtfulness. If the child who is encouraged to think
about what has been commnicated applies this skill to the rest of their
school work, all of our efforts and resources as educators will result
in a higher return.

Right now the public education sector in the US thinks its just fine to wait until freshmen year of college to introduce you to logical fallacies and basic critical reasoning.

Huh?

Does anyone wonder why private schools do this much earlier on? I don’t. It seems pretty obvious.

Public education ignores the concepts of critical thinking until way too late.

Those in acadamia should be clammoring for their local school boards to add critical thinking to elementary curriculums.

]]> By: Dissident http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8426 Dissident Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:41:00 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8426 I'd say Clifford's posts are ADSL-symptomatic. I’d say Clifford’s posts are ADSL-symptomatic.

]]> By: Troublemaker http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8424 Troublemaker Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:00:20 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8424 Does it bother you, even a little bit, when Clifford pushes you down the main page with forty-seven consecutive ADHD-symptomatic posts? Does it bother you, even a little bit, when Clifford pushes you down the main page with forty-seven consecutive ADHD-symptomatic posts?

]]> By: RPM http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8420 RPM Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:58:05 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8420 <i>The ID’s make a big deal, of course, about how blind chance could never evolve anything complex, even with lots of time.</i> The question of whether blind chance can or can't do anything is irrelevant because biologists do not make such claims. Anyone who has taken any biology courses should know that there a stochastic (blind chance) evolutionary forces such as mutation and drift, and there are deterministic forces (NOT blind chance) like natural selection. Evolutionary algorithms use selection to create the most fit program, so this is not "blind chance". The ID’s make a big deal, of course, about how blind chance could never evolve anything complex, even with lots of time.

The question of whether blind chance can or can’t do anything is irrelevant because biologists do not make such claims. Anyone who has taken any biology courses should know that there a stochastic (blind chance) evolutionary forces such as mutation and drift, and there are deterministic forces (NOT blind chance) like natural selection. Evolutionary algorithms use selection to create the most fit program, so this is not “blind chance”.

]]> By: Elliot http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8417 Elliot Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:32:37 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8417 To follow Maynards point, I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the work of Stuart Kaufmann of the Sante Fe Institute. He makes a very interesting case for the potential ubiquity of life in the universe without resort to "the man behind the curtain". Interesting stuff. Elliot To follow Maynards point, I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the work of Stuart Kaufmann of the Sante Fe Institute. He makes a very interesting case for the potential ubiquity of life in the universe without resort to “the man behind the curtain”.

Interesting stuff.

Elliot

]]> By: Maynard Handley http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8414 Maynard Handley Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:04:34 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8414 Sean, I would like to point out just one more issue regarded to ID which I have never seen advanced on the internet. The ID's make a big deal, of course, about how blind chance could never evolve anything complex, even with lots of time. OK, that's an empirical question. Do we have an answer? Let's look at the work of David Fogel, one of the foremost researchers today in evolutionary algorithms. You can hear what he has to say here http://www.podscope.com/search.php?q=david+fogel&sourceID=19&sa.x=0&sa.y=0 (Yeah, the web UI here suck. I'm sorry, blame the morons at podscope.) (This is a very easy to listen to talk about 30 minutes long.) What he discusses is about "teaching" a computer to play checkers using a genetic algorithm that had pretty much bugger-all intelligence built-in. All that was done was the usual genetic algorithm stuff --- create random programs, "put them into the evolutionary environment" (ie have them play checkers), score them as either winners or losers, and have the winners breed more fecundly than the losers. And, of my, it actually works. The programs can play checkers well against humans --- and they have strange, unexpected and stupid quirks, just like life. Sean,
I would like to point out just one more issue regarded to ID which I have never seen advanced on the internet.
The ID’s make a big deal, of course, about how blind chance could never evolve anything complex, even with lots of time.
OK, that’s an empirical question. Do we have an answer?
Let’s look at the work of David Fogel, one of the foremost researchers today in evolutionary algorithms.
You can hear what he has to say here
http://www.podscope.com/search.php?q=david+fogel&sourceID=19&sa.x=0&sa.y=0
(Yeah, the web UI here suck. I’m sorry, blame the morons at podscope.)
(This is a very easy to listen to talk about 30 minutes long.)

What he discusses is about “teaching” a computer to play checkers using a genetic algorithm that had pretty much bugger-all intelligence built-in. All that was done was the usual genetic algorithm stuff — create random programs, “put them into the evolutionary environment” (ie have them play checkers), score them as either winners or losers, and have the winners breed more fecundly than the losers. And, of my, it actually works. The programs can play checkers well against humans — and they have strange, unexpected and stupid quirks, just like life.

]]> By: Eugene http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8409 Eugene Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:29:36 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/03/flacks/#comment-8409 Hi Sean! Maybe you can have a PR person handing out copies of your book instead? :) Hi Sean!

Maybe you can have a PR person handing out copies of your book instead? :)

]]>