Posted on 03/13/2013 4:16:43 PM PDT by Jandy on Genesis
The Kansas legislature had considered a House Bill 2306 calling for objectivity in science. The bill was introduced by the House Standing Committee on Education and is supported by medical doctors who also wish to see balance in science education. The bill states:
The legislature recognizes that the teaching of certain scientific topics, such as climate science, may be controversial. The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered.
The committee sponsoring the bill has been called "anti-science" and in denial about global warming. The response from this journalist is typical.
The clause that sticks in the journalist's throat is this: "such as climate science". He assumes that the popular theory of global warming is an accurate one and beyond further investigation. The Kansas Standing Committee on Education recognizes that objectivity is necessary for a sound science education. It is essential to the empirical method of science.
(Excerpt) Read more at jandyongenesis.blogspot.com ...
ToAGW<>TToE
Beyond that, I sayeth not.
Why don’t they just pass a law making Pi = 3, for the children...
Are things so bad that they no longer teach the scientific method? The difference between an idea, a hypothesis, a theory, and law? And that even some scientific laws apply in a very narrow scope, e.g., Newtonian physics.
We don’t need the scientific method anymore, doncha see, because everything is so “settled.”
Objectivity? In Science? Well, I declare!
If leftist extremists had any respect for science, they’d look at the facts, notice leftism has been an unmitigated disaster wherever it’s been tried, and grow up and become patriots like us.
>>And that even some scientific laws apply in a very narrow scope, e.g., Newtonian physics.<<
Be careful using such terms as “scientific theory.” LOTS of people here think it is a “guess all grown up” (as opposed to a structured construct which explains a large body of data). And we have scientific methods to “probe” a Scientific Theory.
And AGW is, indeed, a guess, since it meets exactly zero criteria of a Scientific Theory (unless you count funding for starting at a conclusion and going backwards from there).
But I didn’t say that.
Because I wasn’t here.
Really.
Thanks Jandy on Genesis. Mostly about the AGW hoax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.