Science and the general public

[ZapperZ]

I have (not going to say what because I'd rather not give to much info away). It was interesting, I found that the majority of people were very interested in what I had to say. They had many questions and enjoyed the discourse. However something that was hard was trying to get to people who weren't looking to have a discussion about science, I kept thinking that the good response from most people was because they were the type of people who would look for communication.

Something else that was interesting was that most people were not surprised to learn that a lot of things were pseudo-science and bunk. For the most part it seems that people are fully aware that many things are rubbish and trust what they hear tentatively.

OK, now under what circumstances was this? Were these the people who came to visit you at where you work? In my experience, these people who make an effort to come and visit me were already interested in science and are not completely science-illiterate. They have a deeper appreciation and understanding of science. So the demographics here are slightly skewered.

Zz.

 

[GregJ]

The high school experience no doubt leaves a kind of bad taste in the mouths of many students and I wouldn't be surprised if this was a big contributing factor among others.

This. I have even asked a few friends, and the usual response I get is something akin to "I really disliked math/science in school. It was boring and difficult".

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

http://www.mikebrotherton.com/

^ That's a link to the blog of an astronomer and professor at Wyoming.

Read his most recent blog (it's right there on the home page), and he gives a detailed explanation of how, due to his success as both an astronomer and a science fiction novelist, he has been able to obtain grants from NASA and the NSF in order to hold week-long, yearly seminars educating the public.

His view is that, through the use of science fiction (which he points out is what got him interested in science in the first place), and through educating science fiction writers and producers, the public will become more interested, and better educated in regards to not only astronomy, but science in general.

It's an innovative way, which is probably why he got the grant money from both NASA and the NSF, to promote science, and I feel like more professors should use the positions that they are in (he is able to show off telescopes, use college textbooks for explanations, etc.) to do as much as they can to get the general public interested in science.

EDIT:

I see that the last few posts have been about how high school does a poor job of promoting science, and I couldn't agree more. I'm not a member of this forum because a teacher inspired me, or the curriculum was spectacular. I became interested in science, and more specifically physics, through almost dumb luck. Regardless, once I became interested in it, it was science enthusiasts like Carl Sagan, and more recently, Neil Degrasse Tyson, who got me to really appreciate what science is and can do for us.

Not more than a year ago, in my Honors Chemistry class, I would refer to it as a "glorified math class, and nothing more". That's how I felt about it, because my teacher did a poor job of getting anybody interested in chemistry, let alone science.

Unless the high school curriculum is changed for the better, and at least has students appreciate science and math, and respect them for what they do for society, then I feel like what Mike Brotherton is doing to promote science is unfortunately what we are going to have to resort to.

 

[Evo]

It would help if the teachers that taught science actually had degrees in those sciences. I don't don't how widespread it is, but I've run across schools where teachers have been given courses to teach in which they have no degree in the subject.

Edit: found a recent article

With teacher layoffs and staff shortages nationwide, some teachers are being asked to teach subjects they are not certified to teach.

Roughly 30 percent of chemistry and physics teachers in public high schools did not major in these fields and haven't earned a certificate to teach those subjects, according to a new survey released Monday by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Half of Earth science teachers are similarly unqualified.

"In our mind, a certificate doesn't necessarily mean somebody has content knowledge," he says. Although subject certification varies state to state, Luce says that taking one chemistry class in college might qualify a teacher to teach the subject. "If you don't have content knowledge then it's very difficult to not only teach the class, but it's virtually impossible to inspire somebody."

According to the NCES study, which surveyed high school teachers during the 2007-2008 school year, fewer than half of chemistry and physics teachers majored in those subjects, and a quarter of math teachers don't hold math degrees.

Luce says the problem is most prevalent in middle school, where more than two thirds of math teachers aren't qualified to teach the subject, a 2007 report by the National Academies shows. Only 1 in 10 middle school physical science teachers have a degree or certification in the subject, according to the same report. "That's when you lose a kid's interest," he says. "They don't even want to try in high school because they think, 'I didn't like this in middle school.'"

http://www.usnews.com/education/blo...8/many-stem-teachers-dont-hold-certifications

 

[NewtonianAlch]

Well I suppose it entirely depends on what level of science they are teaching. Is it really necessary that a middle-school teacher have a degree in physics to teach basic physics? Also, this would mean a lot of science degree specific individuals taking up the teaching profession, how likely is that?

 

[Evo]

Well I suppose it entirely depends on what level of science they are teaching. Is it really necessary that a middle-school teacher have a degree in physics to teach basic physics? Also, this would mean a lot of science degree specific individuals taking up the teaching profession, how likely is that?

Middle school/juinior high school can go to grade 9 (freshman year of high school). Also, the study was mostly concerning High School teachers.

If you have a teacher teaching a subject that they don't understand and may not even like, how is that going to effect the student? When I was in school, my teachers couldn't answer a majority of the questions asked by students. They just went from the teacher's manual. Classes consisted of "read pages x through z", and then you were handed a quiz copied out of the manual. Some of the books were so old that some information in them had since been proven wrong. We were learning 30 - 50 year old science. I had one book that was printed in the early 30's and it was a reprint from the 20's.

 

[GregJ]

Well I suppose it entirely depends on what level of science they are teaching. Is it really necessary that a middle-school teacher have a degree in physics to teach basic physics? Also, this would mean a lot of science degree specific individuals taking up the teaching profession, how likely is that?

I am just mentioning the way my logic goes:

Teachers that have specific degrees/qualifications in science and mathematics are far more likely to enjoy teaching those subjects (as they studied them for a reason) than someone who is not qualified. Not only that, they would have a better understanding and could probably teach the subject better too.

If we could somehow get more qualified teachers, it may in the long run help get more interested in the subject and hopefully increase the qualified teachers pool.

But, this is just wishful thinking on my behalf. I am sure there are other factors to take into account.

 

[Pythagorean]

I've done some scientific outreach locally, mostly with kids but young enough so that adults are around too. My feelings were that it was fun for the kids and it probably challenged their minds positively for a short time.

In the end though, for the most part, there were two kinds of people present (well, of the people that were willingly there, not dragged by family):

1) interested in the science, asked questions, excited (already familiar with science and want to show it off to the professionals)
2) just kind of found it to be a fun little geeky activity.

Of course, what's really interesting is when you have parents that are 2) but the kid is 1). But you wonder, if a kid goes back to spending the majority of the time plopped in front of a TV or something, if that one or two hours was very impactful.

I suppose that's what it comes down to for me. I don't want to bother "hacking at the branches" of the poisoned tree, I want to hack at the root: establishing a good relationship between science and the public means raising our children on science. You can teach an old dog new tricks, but it's not nearly as effective.

But it's tough to teach the new dogs, because they're being raised by the old dog.

 

[turbo]

I have found that it's easy to get the attention of young children. When visiting my neighbors, I generally try to teach their grand-daughters something.

Ex: there's a piercing whistling call from behind the tree-line, and I ask them what bird made that call. I told them that it was a Broad-Winged Hawk, and as luck would have it, the hawk came wheeling overhead. That kind of stuff sticks with them.

We look at plants, trees, bugs, etc. As Feynman said (paraphrasing) it's not enough to know the name of something - you have to know something more about the characteristics of what you're looking at. They weren't around the other day (lost opportunity) but the crows nesting near the front of my property were in a terrible panic. Some nest-robbing on the part of the broad-wings. Baby hawks need to eat too.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I think we've narrowed down the issue to school curriculum now. There are definitely ways outside of school to interest students in science, but those are entirely dependent on students who are willing to actually join science clubs, participate in what pythagorean describes, or do what Mike Brotherton does in my above post.

Can anybody think of something, beyond making sure that a teacher actually has a degree in what they're teaching (this is difficult because of the lack of new teachers in certain fields, especially math) that would improve scientific understanding and intrigue in students?

EDIT:

I really see us going somewhere great with this. We seem to have a lot of great minds working together in this thread, and I would really love, and expect, to see some great suggestions. Who knows, maybe we could accomplish something with this.

 

[Borg]

Coincidentally, Exxon is running a series of YouTube videos on science and math teachers that inspired their engineers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOocI0TLzyg&NR=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qbXyS_2Vek

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I think that last video was a commercial for a little while.

 

[nucl34rgg]

I recently saw some comments on t3h interwebz regarding the sciences/engineering. One comment went something like:

"I don't really trust scientists, whenever I see something in the news about science, they are always talking about "it maybe this" or "it maybe that" they are never sure"

I was instantly like wtf lolz0rdz? My first thought was maybe she had seen some theoretical physics related news scene, maybe it was during that fiasco with CERN and neutrinos traveling faster than light and assumed that's all scientists do theoretical physics. The stereotypical man with 1950's pomade-filled slick hair and thick bill gates glasses donning a white coat came to mind.

Then later a girl who was around 25 asked me what exactly was engineering, and that she hears it all the time but wasn't sure of what it was.

I thought of roundhouse kicking her in the face, but then realized I'd be helping lawyers make more money than they already deserve.

The question I pose is, how stupid is the general public when it comes to the sciences? One would think a 25-year-old person (from Australia) would have at least done up to year 10 science and being in a developed country would have a grasp of what's happening around them.

Some of us were interested in the inner-workings of devices, and why things worked the way they do since we were very young, and granted not everyone is like that, but I don't think ignorance in this day and age of the basic sciences let alone an understanding of what an "engineer" or a "scientist" is or does is acceptable. Not everyone is like this, but these two comments are just a few of what I've been seeing over the years, especially on the internet. I shudder to think how many ignoramuses there actually are.

I'm not a lawyer nor have I studied law, but it doesn't mean I think all people who study law are running around in courtrooms arguing like in Law and Order and aiming to wear a stupid wig sitting on a bench by the time they are 50.

Do people think computers, cars, electronic devices, phones just materialise from nowhere? I am wondering who they think exactly that makes these. I certainly am interested in getting in the minds of some individuals, would definitely make an interesting research paper to examine idiocy.

End rant.

It would seem that the public opinion and regard for science and fundamental research has declined dramatically since the 1960's and 1970's. Meanwhile, the love and demand for technology is always growing.

What we have now is an average modern citizen who uses black boxes and has no idea how they work and what it took to make them. People love modern computers, but few know and embrace the breakthroughs in solid state physics that led to our beloved semiconductor industry. They love their ability to purchase medications that can save their lives while simultaneously battling the theory of evolution and the teaching of biology in public schools.

People literally live in the dark ages of understanding while celebrating technology that they cannot even begin to comprehend. Many of them would have trouble solving basic physics questions or even qualitatively explaining atoms. I remember seeing an interview with former President Bill Clinton, a man well respected -- in spite of some of his controversial leisurely activities -- XD, stating that if the positive and negative charges of an atom were "out of balance," the atom would fly apart! He also made some shockingly ignorant claims about muons. At one point, he commanded an unrivaled arsenal of weaponry capable of incredible destruction! I hope I am not the only person that finds this a little horrifying.

Here is the video if you think I am BSing you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p2dT7xVS6-s#t=3362s
His goal, which was to advocate more funding for basic research, was admirable, but what he says betrays a disturbing lack of understanding. "Elemental physics," "The muons in all of our atoms..." ... really?

I think we need the public to get excited about science. We need the basic ideas of physics, biology, and chemistry to be "common knowledge" in the general public. We need people to also be aware of basic mathematics, computer science and economics. Being a modern human isn't just about having advanced technology. We need an informed society capable of understanding where we stand, what we are trying to achieve, and how we might go about achieving it because it is that very society that will ultimately foot the bill and decide whether we progress or regress.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think we need the public to get excited about science. We need the basic ideas of physics, biology, and chemistry to be "common knowledge" in the general public. We need people to also be aware of basic mathematics, computer science and economics. Being a modern human isn't just about having advanced technology. We need an informed society capable of understanding where we stand, what we are trying to achieve, and how we might go about achieving it because it is that very society that will ultimately foot the bill and decide whether we progress or regress.

Nice post, but Evo has pin pointed the big obstacle to this goal, which is our sorry educational system at the pre-college level. Current problem: teachers are being made to teach subjects they aren't certified to teach. This sounds like some remedial measure a country might adopt in the wake of a disaster or something, not something that should be happening in an otherwise well functioning society.

I don't know, haven't looked into it in depth, but I suspect the government doesn't perceive it to be in their budgetary interest to promote the kind of society you propose, to make sure every Starbucks Barista and yoga teacher and welder and drywall hanger understands how their laptop works, how the periodic table is organized, what the Sunday morning TV economist means by this or that term . Somehow it always happens that enough bright people emerge from the other end of the educational system to perform the services needed by the government and society, to keep the military and infrastructure running, and to make progress. As long as the grade schools and high schools are creaking along somehow, the government is probably satisfied.

 

[nucl34rgg]

Nice post, but Evo has pin pointed the big obstacle to this goal, which is our sorry educational system at the pre-college level. Current problem: teachers are being made to teach subjects they aren't certified to teach. This sounds like some remedial measure a country might adopt in the wake of a disaster or something, not something that should be happening in an otherwise well functioning society.

I don't know, haven't looked into it in depth, but I suspect the government doesn't perceive it to be in their budgetary interest to promote the kind of society you propose, to make sure every Starbucks Barista and yoga teacher and welder and drywall hanger understands how their laptop works, how the periodic table is organized, what the Sunday morning TV economist means by this or that term . Somehow it always happens that enough bright people emerge from the other end of the educational system to perform the services needed by the government and society, to keep the military and infrastructure running, and to make progress. As long as the grade schools and high schools are creaking along somehow, the government is probably satisfied.

I don't expect a complete understanding, but there is a serious problem when the basic ideas are not making their way into the public mind. We have people who still literally believe the Earth is 5000 years old. We have people who legitimately believe that evolution is a lie. We have people who think quantum mechanics is abstract nonsense, and we have presidents that think all atoms are muonic. There is a serious problem with this.

We are a society that, now more than ever, needs to have a rudimentary understanding of the technology we use. If people can memorize a bunch of religious myths, the lyrics of their favorite music song, or the statistics for their favorite basketball players, they sure as hell can learn the particles in an atom, or the components of a cell. It's just that our education system is garbage. They can know the basics. I'm not asking that everyone be able to explain how a laptop works in detail, but everyone should know at least qualitatively the different parts of a computer, and what were the big breakthroughs required to make computers work. I have friends whose jobs exist purely because of silicon valley and they neither know nor care who Robert Noyce was or what an integrated circuit is. That is disturbing.

Our baristas, yoga teachers, and drywall hangers are taxpaying, voting citizens. As a collective, they have real power, and ultimately if we do not make a concerted effort to inform the public, we will be left with a bunch of scientists with their hats in their hands begging for money from people who have no idea why it is important to fund the endeavor. The support structure for fundamental research will decay, and we will be left with a society that will technologically plateau. We are sort of seeing this now in the USA.

On the other hand, many have made the argument that fundamental research (at least in physics) has gotten so deep that it holds virtually no chance of ever directly enabling the creation of new technology and that we should, thus, divert funds to areas of research with a seemingly more immediate payoff in terms of potential for technological advancement. I disagree because new technology often arises in surprising, unforeseen ways from research, but the argument does raise a valid question about whether the money is better spent elsewhere. I suppose I've gone way off topic!

To get back on topic, it is merely my opinion that an informed public (not an expert public, but simply one informed of the major breakthroughs in science and well educated) would ultimately be beneficial for us all. However, I, of course, have absolutely no evidence to back that up, and for all I know, it may actually turn out to be detrimental if the public were better informed/educated!

 

[GladScientist]

I don't think that most of the public is stupid, it's just ignorance and not caring. For example, the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. It's not because they were presented with facts that made them think that evolution is not true; it's because someone told them, and they didn't care to even find out what evolution is before dismissing it. Most people simply don't care.

Of course, we have people like Niel Degrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku trying to bring science more into the mainstream, and I think they're doing a fantastic job. If more people become open-minded, I feel that more people would have at least some passion for science.

 

[Evo]

We have people who legitimately believe that evolution is a lie.

I assume that was a mistake?

 

[nucl34rgg]

I assume that was a mistake?

I didn't mean the content of their belief was itself legitimate. I meant their belief was authentic and honest.
Perhaps it would be better phrased as, "We have people who honestly believe that the theory of evolution is false and is merely perpetrated for some political agenda. This belief, in my opinion, is absurd!" :P

 

[OmCheeto]

..., and we have presidents that think all atoms are muonic.

Really? I missed that thread. Or is that in this thread?

Ah ha!

Here is the video if you think I am BSing you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p2dT7xVS6-s#t=3362s
His goal, which was to advocate more funding for basic research, was admirable, but what he says betrays a disturbing lack of understanding. "Elemental physics," "The muons in all of our atoms..." ... really?

I think you misrepresented what he was trying to say.
I think he was trying to explain, what do they call it, parity breaking?

He's a lawyer by training, and the words that came out his mouth were merely his interpretation of what some particle physicist told him one day. As far as I can tell, he got just about every detail wrong, but I have a feeling he understood the concept, and knew the research was important enough to fund, and present to the public.

And if you look at the Muon entry in Wiki, it looks as though he may have even read the article:

Muonic atoms

The muon was the first elementary particle discovered that does not appear in ordinary atoms. Negative muons can, however, form muonic atoms (also called mu-mesic atoms), by replacing an electron in ordinary atoms. Muonic hydrogen atoms are much smaller than typical hydrogen atoms because the much larger mass of the muon gives it a much smaller ground-state wavefunction than is observed for the electron.

What was it Fermi once said?

If I could remember the names of all these particles, I'd be a botanist.

for my future google searching reference: President Clinton thinks that all atoms are muonic.

 

[nucl34rgg]

Really? I missed that thread. Or is that in this thread?

Ah ha!
I think you misrepresented what he was trying to say.
I think he was trying to explain, what do they call it, parity breaking?

He's a lawyer by training, and the words that came out his mouth were merely his interpretation of what some particle physicist told him one day. As far as I can tell, he got just about every detail wrong, but I have a feeling he understood the concept, and knew the research was important enough to fund, and present to the public.

And if you look at the Muon entry in Wiki, it looks as though he may have even read the article:
What was it Fermi once said?

for my future google searching reference: President Clinton thinks that all atoms are muonic.

Don't get me wrong! I have a great deal of respect for President Clinton. I just thought it was a funny example of how far off the mark the public understanding of certain aspects of science is. His motivation was admirable, and I respect him for trying to encourage more funding for fundamental research, but his statements betrayed a serious misunderstanding of even basic chemistry. Then again, we are all probably equally misinformed on matters of law! :D

 

[OmCheeto]

So, just out of curiosity, how many of you here have been involved in trying to communicate science to the public? Your participation here on PF does not count.

Yes, but I'm sure if a physicist were standing there, I'd sound like President Clinton. But average people are usually impressed. I had to stop talking science at the bar, as an actual particle physicist has taken up residence. Damn smarty...

If you have, did you learn anything from your effort? Did you think your efforts were productive? What lessons can you convey to the group here?

In trying to convey a concept, I have to do a stream of consciousness, and not let them interrupt until I'm finished, otherwise--------(see below)--------v

If you haven't, why not?
Zz.

Only with one person. He insists paw-zee-trons are ejected from atoms in solar panels by light beams and that's what makes electricity.

For the most part, I like surrounding myself with people smarter than myself. I feel this is the primary reason I'm here at PF. Some people are the opposite. They like having all the answers.

Not sure why, but some people seem to have taken the following way too literally:

All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten​

 

[Evo]

I don't think that most of the public is stupid, it's just ignorance and not caring. For example, the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. It's not because they were presented with facts that made them think that evolution is not true; it's because someone told them, and they didn't care to even find out what evolution is before dismissing it. Most people simply don't care.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Most people are not even able to think for themselves, they are told what to believe from birth, and those that can manage to break free from the brainwashing are in the minority.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, just out of curiosity, how many of you here have been involved in trying to communicate science to the public? Your participation here on PF does not count.

If you have, did you learn anything from your effort? Did you think your efforts were productive? What lessons can you convey to the group here?

If you haven't, why not?

Zz.

I have done so in a number of different ways over the years. I think the most successful effort was the development of an interactive device that conveyed basic concepts of energy, power, torque, speed, and energy conservation. This operated in the Museum of Science and Industry for many years. I know that we had at least several million participants [program cycles]... probably more like ten million, but I lost track after that. We also know that it was an effective teaching tool as participants were randomly selected and surveyed as part of the requirement for funding. On a number of occasions I also had direct feedback from children who had participated. In every case, or nearly so, they SWORE quite emphatically they would never waste energy again!

I have also participated in numerous science education efforts directed at children. In every case I found that most kids are receptive and eager to learn. Adults however are another matter. I find that adults who have little exposure to science tend to divide into two groups: On one hand we have folks who are interested in learning but just never pursued scientific subjects. Maybe they were bad at math, got turned off by a bad teacher, or just never had a particular interest. They tend to be receptive to new information. On the other side we have people who don't base their worldview on evidence or logic. They have little or no appreciation for science [or at least the parts they don't like!]. It seems to me that these people see the world the way they want it to be. What's more, I think they need to live this way in order to be happy. I have seen people personally devastated by "the truth". It can be an ugly thing to destroy someone’s belief system no matter how silly it may be. So for many people I think the challenge is more fundamental than simple exposure. It is a matter of psychology and human nature. Some people seem to need to believe whatever it is that makes them happy. And I suspect this is true of everyone to some extent

 

[OmCheeto]

Don't get me wrong! I have a great deal of respect for President Clinton. I just thought it was a funny example of how far off the mark the public understanding of certain aspects of science is. His motivation was admirable, and I respect him for trying to encourage more funding for fundamental research, but his statements betrayed a serious misunderstanding of even basic chemistry. Then again, we are all probably equally misinformed on matters of law! :D

Given that he received his bachelors 44 years ago, and probably had no reasonable cause to study science since then, I'd say he did ok. Even though I completed 8 terms of calculus in university, I've not used it since, and 28 years later, I cannot give you the derivative of x².

Does this make me guilty of having a "serious misunderstanding of mathematics"?

 

[OmCheeto]

I have seen people personally devastated by "the truth". It can be an ugly thing to destroy someone’s belief system no matter how silly it may be.

That was me, the day I found out the truth about rocks and water.

I never really thought about it until that day. I was so sure of myself...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That was me, the day I found out the truth about rocks and water.

I never really thought about it until that day. I was so sure of myself...

I had more profound beliefs in mind. My own sister is a good example, actually. She believes in the claims of John Edwards and the like. She believes dead relatives talk to her in her dreams. She buys into many of the modern spiritual/religious beliefs. And guess what; that makes her happy. She is a wonderful wife and mother who lives a very normal and fulfilling life. But she clearly needs to believe these things. And speaking as someone who has known her since day 1, this is completely consistent with her personality and thinking. It is in her nature.

I love my sister far too much to ever "set her straight".

 

[chiro]

I had more profound beliefs in mind. My own sister is a good example, actually. She believes in the claims of John Edwards and the like. She believes dead relatives talk to her in her dreams. She buys into many of the modern spiritual/religious beliefs. And guess what; that makes her happy. She is a wonderful wife and mother who lives a very normal and fulfilling life. But she clearly needs to believe these things. And speaking as someone who has known her since day 1, this is completely consistent with her personality and thinking. It is in her nature.

I love my sister far too much to ever "set her straight".

The thing is though, no-one can come to assumptions that they 'think' is right based on their own experiences whether in a controlled, formal, highly restrictive setting (like a scientist) or in a completely uncontrolled, messy, informal, non-restrictive setting.

We ultimately have to resort to uncertainty, and this means we have to accept the possibility at least initially that all this stuff can be true.

The thing about proving something is that in order to prove something emphatically, what you usually have to do is to first completely suspend your disbelief that the thing you are trying to disprove is false and then find a contradiction. If the statement is a general one, you only need to find a counter-example. If it's an example, you need to find a general proof.

Now the people have provided one example which means the scientists needs to show a contradiction that shows that it can't happen in any circumstance. Do you realize how ambitious this is given the fact that we barely even know how anything actually functions at a descriptive capacity, let alone works in a deeper contextual capacity?

If you really want to set your sister straight and do it in a rigorous way, the burden is on you to prove in a general way that experiences like the ones she describes can not happen: just like mathematicians do when they prove many things by contradiction.

Are you ready to do that?

 

[Evo]

Now the people have provided one example which means the scientists needs to show a contradiction that shows that it can't happen in any circumstance. Do you realize how ambitious this is given the fact that we barely even know how anything actually functions at a descriptive capacity, let alone works in a deeper contextual capacity?

If you really want to set your sister straight and do it in a rigorous way, the burden is on you to prove in a general way that experiences like the ones she describes can not happen: just like mathematicians do when they prove many things by contradiction.

Are you ready to do that?

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the critic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

 

[chiro]

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the critic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

So given this quote:

I love my sister far too much to ever "set her straight".

How is this not a claim either explicitly or implicitly?

They are actually both making a claim: it's not only the sister.

 

[micromass]

So given this quote:
How is this not a claim either explicitly or implicitly?

They are actually both making a claim: it's not only the sister.

Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly is that a claim for or against the paranormal??

 

[Evo]

So given this quote:



How is this not a claim either explicitly or implicitly?

They are actually both making a claim: it's not only the sister.

He said

She believes dead relatives talk to her in her dreams

She would have to prove this, it would not be up to him to disprove it.

I undertand your point, but it begins with her claims.

 

[chiro]

Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly is that a claim for or against the paranormal??

If you want to "set someone straight", the implication is that they need "fixing". Her claim boiled down to paranormal behaviour (specifically in relation to the actions of John Edwards) being a real phenomenon.

The implication is that Ivan Seeking wanting to "set her sister straight" is that of "correcting" her beliefs, thus effectively setting out to change her belief of said claim implying that it is in fact wrong.

 

[micromass]

If you want to "set someone straight", the implication is that they need "fixing". Her claim boiled down to paranormal behaviour (specifically in relation to the actions of John Edwards) being a real phenomenon.

The implication is that Ivan Seeking wanting to "set her sister straight" is that of "correcting" her beliefs, thus effectively setting out to change her belief of said claim implying that it is in fact wrong.

Not necessarily. "Setting her straight" could also mean to teach her about arguments for claims and to show that the evidence (that she or other people provide) is not sufficient.

One can NEVER prove that ghost don't exist. But we can take a look at the arguments and the evidence and make conclusions about it.

If I say that I'm going to "set someone straight" about beliefs, that doesn't mean I'm going to prove that it's false, but it means I'm going to debunk the evidence that people have for it.

 

[chiro]

He said She would have to prove this, it would not be up to him to disprove it.

I undertand your point, but it begins with her claims.

It is up to both if both want to prove it. If someone makes a claim but doesn't want to prove it, then at a minimum they have to accept that it is potentially wrong. If someone states it as a fact where there is no potential instance that it is ever wrong, then they would have to prove it.

If both people think that there is no potential falsification in their claim, they both have to prove it.

I don't know if Ivan's sister or even Ivan have the stance that there is no potential for any kind of falsification for their claims (remember potential falsity refers to any instance of it being wrong: not necessarily disproving something entirely. Having zero potential falsification corresponds to an absolute truth).

If they both do, they both need to show proof. If one does and the other accepts the possibility that they might be wrong in one way or another (potential falsification), the first must prove. If both admit the potential for falsification, then both just get on with their lives.

 

[micromass]

It is up to both if both want to prove it. If someone makes a claim but doesn't want to prove it, then at a minimum they have to accept that it is potentially wrong. If someone states it as a fact where there is no potential instance that it is ever wrong, then they would have to prove it.

If both people think that there is no potential falsification in their claim, they both have to prove it.

I don't know if Ivan's sister or even Ivan have the stance that there is no potential for any kind of falsification for their claims (remember potential falsity refers to any instance of it being wrong: not necessarily disproving something entirely. Having zero potential falsification corresponds to an absolute truth).

If they both do, they both need to show proof. If one does and the other accepts the possibility that they might be wrong in one way or another (potential falsification), the first must prove. If both admit the potential for falsification, then both just get on with their lives.

That's not how it works. It is for people making the existence claim to prove it. We should not (and cannot) disprove an existence claim.

It's the same thing in a court of law. The defendant should not prove that he is not guilty. It is the other site who should prove that he IS guilty. And it is up to the defendant to debunk the evidence a charge.