Monday, March 15, 2021
Haven't seen one of these lately
Haven't seen a good AskedAnswered pair in a while. RealClearScience provided a perfect one today.
Labels: Askedanswered, Krauss, SES
¶ 9:32 AM
Monday, September 28, 2020
Krauss reprint from 2008
UD was advertising a discussion featuring Lawrence Krauss. I hadn't noticed Krauss in a while; apparently he got on the wrong side of the #metoo Karens, but that still doesn't make him any smarter or better.
A long time ago I thought he was worth arguing against.
= = = = = START REPRINT:
I've been arguing with (or more precisely arguing at) Lawrence Krauss for a while without naming him; he has been writing some truly obnoxious opinion pieces in New Scientist, and I've been responding indirectly.
My quote on the right-hand side in this post was from Krauss.
Right now Krauss is giving a speech at AEI, broadcast on C-Span, in which he makes the same terrible points. Luckily, some questions are allowed, and luckily the questioners are excellent. It would have been better to format the whole presentation as a debate, with questions after each point, so that Krauss's illogical arguments weren't allowed to stick in the audience's minds.
Krauss (to his credit) backed off in some places, but he stuck to a couple of silly and dangerous arguments, which nobody questioned in the time available.
Krauss began by associating ignorance with totalitarianism. He gave the example of the Taliban destroying important parts of world culture (the ancient Buddhist statues) "because of ignorance", and proceeded from there to state that Americans must understand the BASICS of evolution as taught by the current consensus, in order to avoid totalitarianism.
This is worse than nonsense.
First, the most effective totalitarians were very smart. Hitler and Stalin poured huge amounts of money and emphasis into research and education. German and Russian math and science teaching was -- probably still is -- vastly superior to ours. Modern Russians know more about nearly everything than modern Americans.
Our entire space program depended on scientists educated under Hitler, not on scientists educated in America. Hitler's problem was emphatically not ignorance.
Second, Krauss seems to think that American science and math education is bad because we hesitate to tell students that evolution is an axiom.
It's exactly the other way around.
Our science and math education is awful BECAUSE WE HAVE FOLLOWED the Krauss model: start with a few axioms, build theories, consider the theories to be settled. Ever since the Scopes trial, we have IN FACT been telling students that evolution is the only possible theory, and this hasn't made a damn bit of difference.
Science and math education -- for that matter, science and math in general -- work best when you start with experimentation. Students learn best when they know first why each fact or theory is important. Why did I slip and fall on the ice this morning? Why did the fried egg stick to the pan? Why did the snow hit Spokane instead of Pullman? Why did this resistor burn, while that one over there is nicely cool? How do I know which part of the computer needs to be replaced?
After the students have their motivation, after they feel the frustration and puzzlement of the question, after they know that the answer will help them to live better or earn more money, THEN you can go into the lab and check out the details. And after the details have been discussed and settled, preferably with some (carefully contained) failures to show what doesn't work, THEN you can show the math and theoretical background.
This is how the Russians did it, with great results; yet despite a few good local programs, we still don't teach this way in most schools.
The Taliban way of thinking is destructive because it starts with definite knowledge and proceeds to immediate action. Allahu akbar, therefore we must destroy all evidence of other gods.
Krauss's own mindset is much closer to the Taliban than to science or Christianity. He takes evolution and global warming as unquestioned axioms, from which we must proceed to immediate action.
A good Christian, or a good scientist, is far more humble. "We'll understand it all by and by" is a Christian attitude and a scientific attitude.
= = = = =
Update: It appears that NBC Nightly News will be doing a feature on math teaching, called "Math Wars", Mon 2/18. Dispute is an encouraging sign ... but it would be more encouraging if the CORRECT method, the EXPERIMENTAL method, had been chosen 100 years ago when it was already obvious.
In a backward sort of way, the Kraussites are right about one thing. Good teaching is actually opposed by conservative and religious factions, but this is totally unrelated to Darwin. Every respected "conservative" is required to rant for "sticking to the basics" and rant against "progressive" education. Unfortunately "sticking to the basics" always means teaching by memorization of verbal facts, while "progressive" education includes the Montessori methods that work, PLUS a batch of egalitarian ratshit about eliminating competition and eliminating grades.
The correct solution, the Russian solution, is not "the basics", but Montessori PLUS competition and evaluation. Since the correct solution lies outside the rigid chalk lines of each team, it will never be adopted. The "conservatives" will never allow experiential education because it has been dirtied by association with the Left; and the Left will never allow competition because insane egalitarianism is an absolute core belief of the Left, second only to the sacrament of Abortion. I conclude that the teams have drawn the lines this way intentionally, since the one thing our political teams WILL NEVER ALLOW UNDER ANY CONDITIONS IS A CORRECT SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM. We must, must, must, must, must, must, continue our pointless repetition of opposing meaningless mantras, while the ship continues to sink with nobody at the helm. = = = = = END REPRINT. Only one thing has changed since 2008: We're now imitating the Taliban literally instead of metaphorically.
My quote on the right-hand side in this post was from Krauss.
Right now Krauss is giving a speech at AEI, broadcast on C-Span, in which he makes the same terrible points. Luckily, some questions are allowed, and luckily the questioners are excellent. It would have been better to format the whole presentation as a debate, with questions after each point, so that Krauss's illogical arguments weren't allowed to stick in the audience's minds.
Krauss (to his credit) backed off in some places, but he stuck to a couple of silly and dangerous arguments, which nobody questioned in the time available.
Krauss began by associating ignorance with totalitarianism. He gave the example of the Taliban destroying important parts of world culture (the ancient Buddhist statues) "because of ignorance", and proceeded from there to state that Americans must understand the BASICS of evolution as taught by the current consensus, in order to avoid totalitarianism.
This is worse than nonsense.
First, the most effective totalitarians were very smart. Hitler and Stalin poured huge amounts of money and emphasis into research and education. German and Russian math and science teaching was -- probably still is -- vastly superior to ours. Modern Russians know more about nearly everything than modern Americans.
Our entire space program depended on scientists educated under Hitler, not on scientists educated in America. Hitler's problem was emphatically not ignorance.
Second, Krauss seems to think that American science and math education is bad because we hesitate to tell students that evolution is an axiom.
It's exactly the other way around.
Our science and math education is awful BECAUSE WE HAVE FOLLOWED the Krauss model: start with a few axioms, build theories, consider the theories to be settled. Ever since the Scopes trial, we have IN FACT been telling students that evolution is the only possible theory, and this hasn't made a damn bit of difference.
Science and math education -- for that matter, science and math in general -- work best when you start with experimentation. Students learn best when they know first why each fact or theory is important. Why did I slip and fall on the ice this morning? Why did the fried egg stick to the pan? Why did the snow hit Spokane instead of Pullman? Why did this resistor burn, while that one over there is nicely cool? How do I know which part of the computer needs to be replaced?
After the students have their motivation, after they feel the frustration and puzzlement of the question, after they know that the answer will help them to live better or earn more money, THEN you can go into the lab and check out the details. And after the details have been discussed and settled, preferably with some (carefully contained) failures to show what doesn't work, THEN you can show the math and theoretical background.
This is how the Russians did it, with great results; yet despite a few good local programs, we still don't teach this way in most schools.
The Taliban way of thinking is destructive because it starts with definite knowledge and proceeds to immediate action. Allahu akbar, therefore we must destroy all evidence of other gods.
Krauss's own mindset is much closer to the Taliban than to science or Christianity. He takes evolution and global warming as unquestioned axioms, from which we must proceed to immediate action.
A good Christian, or a good scientist, is far more humble. "We'll understand it all by and by" is a Christian attitude and a scientific attitude.
= = = = =
Update: It appears that NBC Nightly News will be doing a feature on math teaching, called "Math Wars", Mon 2/18. Dispute is an encouraging sign ... but it would be more encouraging if the CORRECT method, the EXPERIMENTAL method, had been chosen 100 years ago when it was already obvious.
In a backward sort of way, the Kraussites are right about one thing. Good teaching is actually opposed by conservative and religious factions, but this is totally unrelated to Darwin. Every respected "conservative" is required to rant for "sticking to the basics" and rant against "progressive" education. Unfortunately "sticking to the basics" always means teaching by memorization of verbal facts, while "progressive" education includes the Montessori methods that work, PLUS a batch of egalitarian ratshit about eliminating competition and eliminating grades.
The correct solution, the Russian solution, is not "the basics", but Montessori PLUS competition and evaluation. Since the correct solution lies outside the rigid chalk lines of each team, it will never be adopted. The "conservatives" will never allow experiential education because it has been dirtied by association with the Left; and the Left will never allow competition because insane egalitarianism is an absolute core belief of the Left, second only to the sacrament of Abortion. I conclude that the teams have drawn the lines this way intentionally, since the one thing our political teams WILL NEVER ALLOW UNDER ANY CONDITIONS IS A CORRECT SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM. We must, must, must, must, must, must, continue our pointless repetition of opposing meaningless mantras, while the ship continues to sink with nobody at the helm. = = = = = END REPRINT. Only one thing has changed since 2008: We're now imitating the Taliban literally instead of metaphorically.
Labels: constants and constants, Experiential education, Krauss, Natural law = Soviet law
¶ 8:35 PM
Thursday, June 04, 2020
Sparkling sucker filter
From a marvelous 1904 essay on witch hunters by Jules Michelet.
Here lies Sprenger's real merit, which is beyond dispute. He is a fool, but an intrepid fool; boldly and unflinchingly he lays down the least acceptable doctrines. Another man would have tried to elude, attenuate, soften objections, —but this is not his way. Beginning on the first page, he sets down openly and displays one by one the natural, self-evident reasons there are for disbelieving the satanic miracles. This done, he adds coldly, "Merely so many heretic mistakes." And never pausing to refute the reasons given, he copies out the texts on the other side, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Bible, legends, canonists, and commentators. First he shows you what common sense has to say, then pulverises it by weight of authority.See Citation Syndrome. See Michael Mann, Lawrence Krauss, Dawkins, Fauci, Neil Ferguson, et al.
The method is everywhere identical. Good common sense first of all, followed by a direct frontal attack, a downright, unhesitating negation of common sense. It would seem natural enough, for instance, to say that, love being in the soul already, it is hardly necessary to assume the mysterious intervention of the Evil One to be required. Is not this fairly self-evident? Not so, says Sprenger...See Flat Assertion and Sucker Filter.
The populace agrees with him to a man. All applaud the proceedings; all are eager, excited, impatient for sentence and execution. Hangings are common enough; but this Sorcerer and Sorceress, it will be a tasty treat to see how the pair will sparkle and splutter like brands in the burning.Modern descriptions of the ineradicable power of The Virus show the same fascination with sparkling. One hunter describes The Virus as glitter, sticking to everything it touches.
Labels: 2000=1000, Carbon Cult, Krauss, Sucker Filter
¶ 12:22 AM
Friday, March 15, 2013
Krauss again
An unparalleled example of leftist "liberalism" and "tolerance" and "enlightenment" and "human rights". Lawrence Krauss, the worst living humanoid entity, was invited by a student Islamic group at a London college. Bigot Krauss was supposed to take the atheist side in a debate about the differences between Islam and atheism, but he was astonished and horrified and offended to find that there are ACTUAL DIFFERENCES between Islam and atheism! Bigot Krauss DEMANDED vocally and aggressively that the Muslims MUST CONFORM to his atheist culture, or else he'd leave.
He said: "People are not only afraid to offend, but afraid to offend a vocal and aggressive group of people. There is a segment of the Islamic community that is very vocal about this. I think the notion that these cultural norms should be carried out within a broader society that not only doesn't share them but that is free and open is a very serious problem."Yessir, Bigot Krauss. Ever look in a fucking mirror, asshole? Yessir, Bigot Krauss, we are "free and open", THEREFORE we don't allow non-atheists to practice their religion.
Eventually his request was met and the event continued but some members of the audience were upset with him. One even shouted "intolerant" as he left, which he found "remarkable".Yessir, Bigot Krauss. It's remarkable that a mere lowly Untouchable Non-atheist has the guts to call an Officially Approved Aristocratic Bigot "intolerant". Ultimate irony: Bigot Krauss didn't even need to participate in the debate. His life is complete proof that God does not exist. All he had to do is show up and breathe. QED: Satan is totally in charge. Though doublethink was described by Orwell, this species of doublethink is rather new among tyrants and bigots. In earlier times, murderous genocidal tyrants and bigots understood and stated their own purposes honestly and openly. They didn't see their own "vocal and aggressive" lethality as sweet tolerance.
Labels: Krauss
¶ 4:07 AM
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Self-explanatory picture
A young ideilast pretosting at the Creatoin Musuem in Iwoa. I'm glad his or her edacution focused solely on hating Christains. He or she claerly didn't have any time to waste on superfloououos stuff liek speling or letering.
Lawrence Krauss would be proud of him or her.
A young ideilast pretosting at the Creatoin Musuem in Iwoa. I'm glad his or her edacution focused solely on hating Christains. He or she claerly didn't have any time to waste on superfloououos stuff liek speling or letering.
Lawrence Krauss would be proud of him or her.
Labels: Krauss
¶ 6:56 AM
Friday, March 05, 2010
Syllogism
Still rumbling about Chief Idiot Krauss. Realized a nice little syllogism ...
One of Idiot Krauss's favorite premises: You can't work in any scientific or technical field unless you understand the philosophical underpinnings of science. (By underpinnings he really means This Week's Official Genocidal Atheist Orthodoxy, but when he makes this point he speaks generally.)
Another of Idiot Krauss's favorite premises: Any theory that implicitly or explicitly assumes, or might lead you to find, the existence of a Creator or Central Mind is WRONG. Not unprovable but STRICTLY FALSE.
Conclusion: Krauss misunderstands the deepest philosophical underpinning of science. He doesn't know the difference between unprovable and false. Thus by his own standards he is unqualified to work as a scientist, and he should resign.
One of Idiot Krauss's favorite premises: You can't work in any scientific or technical field unless you understand the philosophical underpinnings of science. (By underpinnings he really means This Week's Official Genocidal Atheist Orthodoxy, but when he makes this point he speaks generally.)
Another of Idiot Krauss's favorite premises: Any theory that implicitly or explicitly assumes, or might lead you to find, the existence of a Creator or Central Mind is WRONG. Not unprovable but STRICTLY FALSE.
Conclusion: Krauss misunderstands the deepest philosophical underpinning of science. He doesn't know the difference between unprovable and false. Thus by his own standards he is unqualified to work as a scientist, and he should resign.
Labels: Krauss
¶ 6:15 AM
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Playing with fire
The elites are so blindly involved in their own fucked-up genocidal Commie religion that they don't see what they're doing. (I was going to say "and don't care", but on second thought they probably would care if they were capable of seeing anything.)
From NYtimes today:
And unsurprisingly, here's my favorite tyrannical asshole Lawrence Krauss, spewing toxic dictatorship as always:
Krauss is, as always, wrong on all counts and all levels. His sequence of events is wrong, and his dangerous murderous idea that the peons MUST BE REQUIRED BY FORCE TO ACCEPT MY ROYAL HOLY WORD WITHOUT A MURMUR OF DISSENT OR QUESTION is just as massively psychopathic as always.
The whole point of science, repeat the whole goddamn point and purpose, is to "cast doubt on veracity". If your sole purpose in life is to muzzle everyone who "casts doubt on veracity", you are the EXACT OPPOSITE OF A SCIENTIST. You are the worst sort of religious cult leader.
Finally, the elite Stalinists don't seem to realize they're playing with fire. When you force rational and well-informed people to shut the hell up and swallow official lies on several subjects at once, you are NOT turning rational well-informed people into meek passive identical robots. You ARE turning them into rebels who will not accept anything you say, even on the exceedingly rare occasions when you happen by accident or misprint to say something true.
From NYtimes today:
Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.
And unsurprisingly, here's my favorite tyrannical asshole Lawrence Krauss, spewing toxic dictatorship as always:
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist who directs the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University and has spoken against efforts to water down the teaching of evolution to school boards in Texas and Ohio, described the move toward climate-change skepticism as a predictable offshoot of creationism.
“Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” he said, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”
Krauss is, as always, wrong on all counts and all levels. His sequence of events is wrong, and his dangerous murderous idea that the peons MUST BE REQUIRED BY FORCE TO ACCEPT MY ROYAL HOLY WORD WITHOUT A MURMUR OF DISSENT OR QUESTION is just as massively psychopathic as always.
The whole point of science, repeat the whole goddamn point and purpose, is to "cast doubt on veracity". If your sole purpose in life is to muzzle everyone who "casts doubt on veracity", you are the EXACT OPPOSITE OF A SCIENTIST. You are the worst sort of religious cult leader.
Finally, the elite Stalinists don't seem to realize they're playing with fire. When you force rational and well-informed people to shut the hell up and swallow official lies on several subjects at once, you are NOT turning rational well-informed people into meek passive identical robots. You ARE turning them into rebels who will not accept anything you say, even on the exceedingly rare occasions when you happen by accident or misprint to say something true.
Labels: Krauss
¶ 1:03 PM
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Weasely Derb
I'd been wondering why Derbyshire was so consistently silent on the Gaia scam, since he so often presents himself as an exponent of good science and good logic.
Apparently many others had been wondering the same thing, because Derb finally felt impelled to write on the subject.
And he shows his true colors by weaseling and waffling.
Sorry, Derb, anyone who loves science and logic, anyone who likes to observe and analyze data, has seen through this hoax for at least a decade. The CO2 correlation has been blazingly wrong from the first moment it was proposed, and all efforts to support it have been criminally dishonest. Alternate hypotheses haven't been proved yet, but we can be 100.00% sure that the carbon connection is false.
Now I know for 100.00% certain what I had previously suspected: Derb is not a scientist but a member of the Scientific Elite. Like Dawkins, like Lawrence Krauss, like every science journalist, his base motivation is raw blood-soaked anti-Christian bigotry. He follows science because science offers a way to poke Christians in the eye and hear them scream.
Apparently many others had been wondering the same thing, because Derb finally felt impelled to write on the subject.
And he shows his true colors by weaseling and waffling.
Sorry, Derb, anyone who loves science and logic, anyone who likes to observe and analyze data, has seen through this hoax for at least a decade. The CO2 correlation has been blazingly wrong from the first moment it was proposed, and all efforts to support it have been criminally dishonest. Alternate hypotheses haven't been proved yet, but we can be 100.00% sure that the carbon connection is false.
Now I know for 100.00% certain what I had previously suspected: Derb is not a scientist but a member of the Scientific Elite. Like Dawkins, like Lawrence Krauss, like every science journalist, his base motivation is raw blood-soaked anti-Christian bigotry. He follows science because science offers a way to poke Christians in the eye and hear them scream.
Labels: Krauss
¶ 6:42 AM
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Ineffective, isn't it?
The Voice of Russia (formerly Radio Moscow) has a much more interesting web presence than Voice of America. It's personal, inviting and interactive, just as R. Moskva had been in its shortwave heyday. I wrote to R. Moskva twice in the early '60s, trying out my self-taught Russian. They replied pleasantly, correcting my grammar and answering my questions.
On the new web version, a feature on Darwin's 200th anniversary reveals a surprisingly positive fact about human resiliency in the face of anti-Christian totalitarians.
According to this Pew article, Americans feel the same as Russians about Darwin in general, but our position on school curriculum seems to be more nuanced or uncertain. The closest version of the question is this one: "I'm going to read some areas of instruction that high schools might offer. Please say whether you think each one should be required instruction, could be offered as an elective, or should not be taught at all." Evolution gets 28% for required and 49% for elective; creationism gets 25% for required and 56% for elective. So roughly half of Americans think both views should be presented, which is slightly higher than the Russian 43%.
Overall, this means that anti-Christian schools and culture aren't nearly as effective as the elites would like. Russia had 70 years of anti-Christian schooling (1920 to 1990) and America has suffered 40 years of anti-Christian schools (1962 to present). Despite all that effort and money by Communist elites in both countries, only a quarter of the population firmly adheres to the establishment's "settled science."
This also decisively kills the idiotic notion propounded by Super-Idiot Lawrence Krauss, that ignorance of science leads to totalitarianism. Both USSR and USA taught ONLY EVOLUTION for several generations, and during that time USSR moved away from totalitarianism while USA moved toward it. So we have tested your theory with a controlled experiment, Super-Idiot Krauss.
Same treatment + opposite results = No causation.
= = = = =
Happy sidenote: Russia has not merely ended anti-Christian public schooling; it's now moving into church-school partnership!
On the new web version, a feature on Darwin's 200th anniversary reveals a surprisingly positive fact about human resiliency in the face of anti-Christian totalitarians.
As for Russia, half of my countrymen believe that the human beings were created by God and a quarter think that humans were parented by apes. The rest – a quarter of those surveyed – offered “hard to say” for an answer. Russian sociologists asked also this question: “What subject should be taught at school – Darwin’s theory of evolution, the Divine creation idea, both of them, or nothing at all? Only 20% advocated for Darwin’s theory as a school subject. 13% were in favor of the Divine creation as the only school subject. But the majority – 43% believed that both concepts should be offered to school kids. It will be a mission impossible for school teachers. One out of ten thinks that nothing should be taught on this controversial point.
According to this Pew article, Americans feel the same as Russians about Darwin in general, but our position on school curriculum seems to be more nuanced or uncertain. The closest version of the question is this one: "I'm going to read some areas of instruction that high schools might offer. Please say whether you think each one should be required instruction, could be offered as an elective, or should not be taught at all." Evolution gets 28% for required and 49% for elective; creationism gets 25% for required and 56% for elective. So roughly half of Americans think both views should be presented, which is slightly higher than the Russian 43%.
Overall, this means that anti-Christian schools and culture aren't nearly as effective as the elites would like. Russia had 70 years of anti-Christian schooling (1920 to 1990) and America has suffered 40 years of anti-Christian schools (1962 to present). Despite all that effort and money by Communist elites in both countries, only a quarter of the population firmly adheres to the establishment's "settled science."
This also decisively kills the idiotic notion propounded by Super-Idiot Lawrence Krauss, that ignorance of science leads to totalitarianism. Both USSR and USA taught ONLY EVOLUTION for several generations, and during that time USSR moved away from totalitarianism while USA moved toward it. So we have tested your theory with a controlled experiment, Super-Idiot Krauss.
Same treatment + opposite results = No causation.
= = = = =
Happy sidenote: Russia has not merely ended anti-Christian public schooling; it's now moving into church-school partnership!
The official paper on cooperation between the Orthodox Church and the Education Ministry was signed at the end of last year. Both the church and the school want the youngsters to learn moral principles. “We’re removing the 100-year gap between the Russian Orthodox Church and school education, — acting Education and Science Minister Vasily Kostyukevich says. – Russian literature and culture is impossible to perceive without Orthodox tradition”.
Labels: Experiential education, Krauss
¶ 6:19 AM
Monday, February 11, 2008
By and by, part II
I've been arguing with (or more precisely arguing at) Lawrence Krauss for a while without naming him; he has been writing some truly obnoxious opinion pieces in New Scientist, and I've been responding indirectly.
My quote on the right-hand side in this post was from Krauss.
Right now Krauss is giving a speech at AEI, broadcast on C-Span, in which he makes the same terrible points. Luckily, some questions are allowed, and luckily the questioners are excellent. It would have been better to format the whole presentation as a debate, with questions after each point, so that Krauss's illogical arguments weren't allowed to stick in the audience's minds.
Krauss (to his credit) backed off in some places, but he stuck to a couple of silly and dangerous arguments, which nobody questioned in the time available.
Krauss began by associating ignorance with totalitarianism. He gave the example of the Taliban destroying important parts of world culture (the ancient Buddhist statues) "because of ignorance", and proceeded from there to state that Americans must understand the BASICS of evolution as taught by the current consensus, in order to avoid totalitarianism.
This is worse than nonsense.
First, the most effective totalitarians were very smart. Hitler and Stalin poured huge amounts of money and emphasis into research and education. German and Russian math and science teaching was -- probably still is -- vastly superior to ours. Modern Russians know more about nearly everything than modern Americans.
Our entire space program depended on scientists educated under Hitler, not on scientists educated in America. Hitler's problem was emphatically not ignorance.
Second, Krauss seems to think that American science and math education is bad because we hesitate to tell students that evolution is an axiom.
It's exactly the other way around.
Our science and math education is awful BECAUSE WE HAVE FOLLOWED the Krauss model: start with a few axioms, build theories, consider the theories to be settled. Ever since the Scopes trial, we have IN FACT been telling students that evolution is the only possible theory, and this hasn't made a damn bit of difference.
Science and math education -- for that matter, science and math in general -- work best when you start with experimentation. Students learn best when they know first why each fact or theory is important. Why did I slip and fall on the ice this morning? Why did the fried egg stick to the pan? Why did the snow hit Spokane instead of Pullman? Why did this resistor burn, while that one over there is nicely cool? How do I know which part of the computer needs to be replaced?
After the students have their motivation, after they feel the frustration and puzzlement of the question, after they know that the answer will help them to live better or earn more money, THEN you can go into the lab and check out the details. And after the details have been discussed and settled, preferably with some (carefully contained) failures to show what doesn't work, THEN you can show the math and theoretical background.
This is how the Russians did it, with great results; yet despite a few good local programs, we still don't teach this way in most schools.
The Taliban way of thinking is destructive because it starts with definite knowledge and proceeds to immediate action. Allahu akbar, therefore we must destroy all evidence of other gods.
Krauss's own mindset is much closer to the Taliban than to science or Christianity. He takes evolution and global warming as unquestioned axioms, from which we must proceed to immediate action.
A good Christian, or a good scientist, is far more humble. "We'll understand it all by and by" is a Christian attitude and a scientific attitude.
= = = = =
Update: It appears that NBC Nightly News will be doing a feature on math teaching, called "Math Wars", Mon 2/18. Dispute is an encouraging sign ... but it would be more encouraging if the CORRECT method, the EXPERIMENTAL method, had been chosen 100 years ago when it was already obvious.
In a backward sort of way, the Kraussites are right about one thing. Good teaching is actually opposed by conservative and religious factions, but this is totally unrelated to Darwin. Every respected "conservative" is required to rant for "sticking to the basics" and rant against "progressive" education. Unfortunately "sticking to the basics" always means teaching by memorization of verbal facts, while "progressive" education includes the Montessori methods that work, PLUS a batch of egalitarian ratshit about eliminating competition and eliminating grades.
The correct solution, the Russian solution, is not "the basics", but Montessori PLUS competition and evaluation. Since the correct solution lies outside the rigid chalk lines of each team, it will never be adopted. The "conservatives" will never allow experiential education because it has been dirtied by association with the Left; and the Left will never allow competition because insane egalitarianism is an absolute core belief of the Left, second only to the sacrament of Abortion. I conclude that the teams have drawn the lines this way intentionally, since the one thing our political teams WILL NEVER ALLOW UNDER ANY CONDITIONS IS A CORRECT SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM. We must, must, must, must, must, must, continue our pointless repetition of opposing meaningless mantras, while the ship continues to sink with nobody at the helm.
My quote on the right-hand side in this post was from Krauss.
Right now Krauss is giving a speech at AEI, broadcast on C-Span, in which he makes the same terrible points. Luckily, some questions are allowed, and luckily the questioners are excellent. It would have been better to format the whole presentation as a debate, with questions after each point, so that Krauss's illogical arguments weren't allowed to stick in the audience's minds.
Krauss (to his credit) backed off in some places, but he stuck to a couple of silly and dangerous arguments, which nobody questioned in the time available.
Krauss began by associating ignorance with totalitarianism. He gave the example of the Taliban destroying important parts of world culture (the ancient Buddhist statues) "because of ignorance", and proceeded from there to state that Americans must understand the BASICS of evolution as taught by the current consensus, in order to avoid totalitarianism.
This is worse than nonsense.
First, the most effective totalitarians were very smart. Hitler and Stalin poured huge amounts of money and emphasis into research and education. German and Russian math and science teaching was -- probably still is -- vastly superior to ours. Modern Russians know more about nearly everything than modern Americans.
Our entire space program depended on scientists educated under Hitler, not on scientists educated in America. Hitler's problem was emphatically not ignorance.
Second, Krauss seems to think that American science and math education is bad because we hesitate to tell students that evolution is an axiom.
It's exactly the other way around.
Our science and math education is awful BECAUSE WE HAVE FOLLOWED the Krauss model: start with a few axioms, build theories, consider the theories to be settled. Ever since the Scopes trial, we have IN FACT been telling students that evolution is the only possible theory, and this hasn't made a damn bit of difference.
Science and math education -- for that matter, science and math in general -- work best when you start with experimentation. Students learn best when they know first why each fact or theory is important. Why did I slip and fall on the ice this morning? Why did the fried egg stick to the pan? Why did the snow hit Spokane instead of Pullman? Why did this resistor burn, while that one over there is nicely cool? How do I know which part of the computer needs to be replaced?
After the students have their motivation, after they feel the frustration and puzzlement of the question, after they know that the answer will help them to live better or earn more money, THEN you can go into the lab and check out the details. And after the details have been discussed and settled, preferably with some (carefully contained) failures to show what doesn't work, THEN you can show the math and theoretical background.
This is how the Russians did it, with great results; yet despite a few good local programs, we still don't teach this way in most schools.
The Taliban way of thinking is destructive because it starts with definite knowledge and proceeds to immediate action. Allahu akbar, therefore we must destroy all evidence of other gods.
Krauss's own mindset is much closer to the Taliban than to science or Christianity. He takes evolution and global warming as unquestioned axioms, from which we must proceed to immediate action.
A good Christian, or a good scientist, is far more humble. "We'll understand it all by and by" is a Christian attitude and a scientific attitude.
= = = = =
Update: It appears that NBC Nightly News will be doing a feature on math teaching, called "Math Wars", Mon 2/18. Dispute is an encouraging sign ... but it would be more encouraging if the CORRECT method, the EXPERIMENTAL method, had been chosen 100 years ago when it was already obvious.
In a backward sort of way, the Kraussites are right about one thing. Good teaching is actually opposed by conservative and religious factions, but this is totally unrelated to Darwin. Every respected "conservative" is required to rant for "sticking to the basics" and rant against "progressive" education. Unfortunately "sticking to the basics" always means teaching by memorization of verbal facts, while "progressive" education includes the Montessori methods that work, PLUS a batch of egalitarian ratshit about eliminating competition and eliminating grades.
The correct solution, the Russian solution, is not "the basics", but Montessori PLUS competition and evaluation. Since the correct solution lies outside the rigid chalk lines of each team, it will never be adopted. The "conservatives" will never allow experiential education because it has been dirtied by association with the Left; and the Left will never allow competition because insane egalitarianism is an absolute core belief of the Left, second only to the sacrament of Abortion. I conclude that the teams have drawn the lines this way intentionally, since the one thing our political teams WILL NEVER ALLOW UNDER ANY CONDITIONS IS A CORRECT SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM. We must, must, must, must, must, must, continue our pointless repetition of opposing meaningless mantras, while the ship continues to sink with nobody at the helm.
Labels: Krauss
¶ 4:24 PM
Sunday, February 10, 2008
By and by
The high priests of Gaia have been shouting loudly of late. They shriek that Christians such as Huckabee should not be allowed anywhere near the government, because Christians are closed-minded and incapable of comprehending data. They bellow that politicians who refuse to march in line with the diktats of Gaia should be jailed.
Okay, let's compare a typical "emanation" from fundamentalist Christianity with a typical "emanation" from the Gaia priesthood.
[The Christian text is by J.R. Baxter, the Gaian by Lawrence Krauss.]
Now let's ask a basic question.
How is science supposed to proceed?
The textbook answer: With humility, through an incremental process of adversarial argument, always open to contrary alternatives, willing to suspend judgment until more data is available.
Which of these two "emanations" comes closer to the proper attitude of science?
Got it?
= = = = =
PS: Here is an especially fine rendition of the left-side emanation above. Click on "Access this Item" near the top of the page to play the recording. A bit of explanation is needed for modern listeners who may find this rendition difficult to comprehend: The four voices in this recording are emitting different pitches at the same time. You will observe that the different pitches sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. This was an archaic technique known as harmony, no longer implemented by modern enlightened performers. One very loud note is all you need when you're an enlightened follower of Lenin. Or Allah. Or Gaia.
Okay, let's compare a typical "emanation" from fundamentalist Christianity with a typical "emanation" from the Gaia priesthood.
[The Christian text is by J.R. Baxter, the Gaian by Lawrence Krauss.]
Now let's ask a basic question.
How is science supposed to proceed?
The textbook answer: With humility, through an incremental process of adversarial argument, always open to contrary alternatives, willing to suspend judgment until more data is available.
Which of these two "emanations" comes closer to the proper attitude of science?
Got it?
= = = = =
PS: Here is an especially fine rendition of the left-side emanation above. Click on "Access this Item" near the top of the page to play the recording. A bit of explanation is needed for modern listeners who may find this rendition difficult to comprehend: The four voices in this recording are emitting different pitches at the same time. You will observe that the different pitches sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. This was an archaic technique known as harmony, no longer implemented by modern enlightened performers. One very loud note is all you need when you're an enlightened follower of Lenin. Or Allah. Or Gaia.
Labels: Krauss
¶ 9:23 AM
