Here is some additional press coverage.
- Education Secretary Betsy DeVos visits Ashland Elementary School
- DeVos highlights challenges facing military children in Virginia school visit
- DeVos tours Virginia school to stress needs of military kids: This is the AP version, and it is the most widely circulated.
Fortunately, the folks demonstrating against Secretary Betsy DeVos behaved themselves. Noisy, but not violent.
So why was I there? I don’t think politicians should be running schools. The public school system is a socialist system. A socialist system ends up serving the people who run the system, not the people that that system is supposed to benefit. Therefore, I am hoping Secretary DeVos will have some success as she advocates school choice.
Consider the problem of just getting a decent science education. Because of theories like Global Warming and the Theory of Evolution, politicians have politicized science. So we have this curiosity.
Yes, we do have scientists who have looked at some data asserting that theories like Global Warming and the Theory of Evolution have to be true because they explain the data, but the SCIENTIFIC method does not work that way. The scientific method does not permit us to equate an unproven hypothesis with a demonstrated theory.
scientific method noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Think about what it means to empirically test a hypothesis. If we have a theory of how a system works, then we have a model of the relationship between the causes and the effects that operate within that system. How do we test our model? We use our model to make a prediction. If we change this cause, we say, then this effect will result. Then we do the experiment and observe the results.
Unfortunately, with respect to Global Warming and the Theory of Evolution, we are incapable of such rigor. We cannot experiment with the weather, and perhaps that is a good thing. Otherwise, we would have an awfully frightful weapon of war. Similarly our ability to conduct experiments in evolution are limited. We don’t live long enough.
The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Does this mean all scientists follow exactly this process? No. Some areas of science can be more easily tested than others. For example, scientists studying how stars change as they age or how dinosaurs digested their food cannot fast-forward a star’s life by a million years or run medical exams on feeding dinosaurs to test their hypotheses. When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists! But even when modified, the goal remains the same: to discover cause and effect relationships by asking questions, carefully gathering and examining the evidence, and seeing if all the available information can be combined in to a logical answer. (from here)
Think that definition from sciencebuddies.org is too off the wall? Then check out
Then consider this observation.
How can we prove that our new hypothesis is true? We never can. The scientific method does not allow any hypothesis to be proven. Hypotheses can be disproven in which case that hypothesis is rejected as false. All we can say about a hypothesis, which stands up to, a test to falsify it is that we failed to disprove it. There is a world of difference between failing to disprove and proving. Make sure you understand this distinction; it is the foundation of the scientific method.
So what would we do with our hypothesis above? We currently accept it as true. To be rigorous, we need to subject the hypothesis to more tests that could show it is wrong. For instance, we could repeat the experiment but switch the control and experimental group. If the hypothesis keeps standing up to our efforts to knock it down, we can feel more confident about accepting it as true. However, we will never be able to state that the hypothesis is true. Rather, we accept it as true because the hypothesis stood up to several experiments to show it is false. (from here)
- Anti Science, “Science” (insanitybytes2.wordpress.com): Commentary on the silliness of Bill Nye.
- Are faith and science mutually exclusive? (thei535project.wordpress.com): Thoughtful analysis of the relationship between faith in God and science.
- King Solomon, Love, Wisdom, Courage? Post 4 Conclusion (rudymartinka.com): Brings the wisdom of King Solomon to the fore.
- Life without Jesus a Disaster? (recoveringknowitall.wordpress.com): Presents the idea that teaching a religion to a child is child abuse.
- The Existence of Jesus as God vs. Atheist Denial (silenceofmind.wordpress.com): Offers the proposition that science proves the existence of God.
- is religion a poison and atheism the antidote? (violetwisp.wordpress.com): Suggests that religion is just another complication.
- harmony (cookiecrumbstoliveby.wordpress.com): What the title suggests.