22/09/2005
A World Without Theories
In a comment on my Intelligent Design post yesterday I was told that the solution to the Evolution debate was to not allow Theories to be taught in school. Obviously this came from a person who was not aware of many of the theories that were are already taught in school. I would guess that much of science and mathematics would not be taught in school if our Radical Right congressional leaders choose to pass such a law.
At the bottom of my post I have a list of the better known theories. But, here I would like to describe some of the changes to the current curriculum if schools chose not to teach theories in school.
First of all, there wouldn’t be any mathematics in school. The kindergarten would no longer have those little counting blocks that they group together and count. That activity encompasses both number theory and set theory. Everyone remembers sets and how it is the basic understanding of mathematics, but without set theory and number theory we basically have no mathematics, as we know it.
But, if we assume that there was some special dispensation that allowed the teaching of mathematics as long as you didn’t mention the words set theory or number theory, we would still be in trouble, because group theory is the basis for the operations like addition and subtraction, not to mention multiplication and division. Students would love not having to learn their multiplication tables. But, the down side is that we would have some of the lowest math test scores on the planet.
Basically all of mathematics is a collection of theories that define how it all fits together. Politicians and Theologians who wish to do away with the Theory of Evolution may decide that mathematical theories in General aren’t really the same as other theories. They could craft a law that allows only mathematical theories, or they could rename them something clever like M-Theories. They probably wouldn’t even know that the name has already been taken. But most of these people aren’t really into modern physics.
If they created a special dispensation for mathematical theories we would still have problems with our current curriculum. For example we could not teach music, because music is described by music theory. In fact we couldn’t study literature without literary theory. Well, actually we could study without these theories, but the instruction would likely be pointless and random. We could read stories, and talk about why we liked or disliked them, but there is no point explaining the importance of character development, or the climax in the story. It would be pointless just like the music theory class where everyone is pointlessly banging on the piano hoping to come across the correct combination of sounds that sound “good” to our ear.
Well, the clever politicians and theologians could certainly circumvent this problem by saying that no scientific theories could be taught in school. This would allow other theories to still be taught, but stopping the teaching of Evolution, the key to evil in our world as some opponents to this science portend.
In California every school child learns about Plate Tectonics several times in their elementary school years. But, not if the Radical Right succeeds in banning all theories from being taught. When the ground starts shaking we will hear the usual screaming, but now the children won’t know why the ground is shaking. Perhaps the radicals think its better that they don’t know, just like the sex-education they don’t want to teach to our children.
Sure, Plate Tectonics might be on shaky ground when it comes to science, especially if you believe in the flat Earth of the Bible. But Chemistry as we know it would also be by the wayside. The expulsion of atomic theory would be hailed by school children that always hated memorizing the periodic table. Of course children would no longer know the danger of mixing acids and bases as well. No need to learn PV=nRT either, because the kinetic theory of gasses would be out.
And Physics would be out the window as well. Gravitational Theory and Electromagnetic Theory are basically the foundation of physics - at least what is taught in elementary and high schools under the current curriculum.
But, don’t worry because without the need to teach any of these science classes there will be more time to teach the Bible as Literature classes.
Like I promised, here is a list of some famous theories, but there are more:
Scientific Theories
Theory of Special and General Relativity
Gravitational Theory
Quantum Theory
Many-Body Theory
Quantum Field Theory
Plate Tectonic Theory
Electromagnetic Theory
Atomic Theory
Kinetic Theory of Gases
Acoustic Theory
Mathematical Theories
Set Theory
Group Theory
Number Theory
Field Theory
Game Theory
Probability Theory
Algorithmic Information Theory
Computation Theory
Graph Theory
Other Theories
Music Theory
Literary Theory
Critical Theory
politics, Science, Evolution, religion and intelligent design
12:30 Posted in Politics, Religion, Science | Permalink | Comments (13) | Email this | Tags: religion
Comments
You're playing word games. "Number theory" is not a theory in the same sense like M-theory is theory. Mathematics is objectively true regardless of the nature of the "real" world. Science is merely the attempt to create good-enough models.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 23/09/2005
Mathematical Theories are based on definitions created by mathematicians. Scientists used experimental evidence and observations of the real world to base their theories on. Therefore scientific theories are actually more dependent on reality than mathematical theories. However, both are better than religious theories in the fact that they are consistent with fact and don't depend on the emotion of the people creating them.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 23/09/2005
"herefore scientific theories are actually more dependent on reality than mathematical theories."
Agreed. Mathematical theories are "ideal" while scientific theories are "real." One way this demonstrates itself is that mathematical theories can be proven true, while scientific theories never can.
" However, both are better than religious theories in the fact that they are consistent with fact"
Er...
You do realize that when science uses math, math is only used as an approximation of reality, yes? And that math is true regardless of whether it corresponds to physics, yes?
Saying "mathematical theories are consistent with fact" is troublesome, because it implies that a mathematical theory that is ideally true (say, euclidean geometry) is somehow true in our universe, too.
"don't depend on the emotion of the people creating them."
So when you say "religious," you mean "mystical"?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 24/09/2005
Dan,
Religious and Mystical are equivilent. Only the people who are emotionally attached to one partricular religion will say that their own religion is based on "fact" and not "mystical whims." To claim the a book was written by God is mystical. To claim that a book was inspired by God is mystical. To claim that stories passed down by generations origionated from God is mystical. All of these mystical ideas become "fact" in the mind of a believer.
Science on the other hand is based only on observables.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 25/09/2005
Mysticism can be an element of religion, and religion can be an element of mysticism, but they are not identical. They are like two partially overlapping circles in a Venn diagram.
Wikipedia has a good, secular overview of mysticism
"Mystics experience intuitive knowledge of transcendent dimensions, beyond the phenomenal or material concrete objects of ordinary perception. The mystic sees things that are not part of ordinary experience. William James used the words "ineffable" (which means that something cannot or should not be spoken) and "noetic" (from the Greek νοῦς nous: "relating to consciousness or intuition'), to describe the mystical experience.
A more general definition sees mysticism as an attempt to derive some wider meaning from personal experience, surpassing everyday human understanding and tapping insights normally hidden from our mundane selves. While usually understood in a religious context, a mystical experience may happen to anyone, does not require religious training, can occur unbidden and without preparation, and may not be understood as religious at all. (James, 1902) In various circumstances, such experiences may be interpreted non-exclusively as scientific or artistic inspiration, or even dismissed as a psychological disorder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
As does the Catholic Encylopedia, from a more religious perspective
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10663b.htm
I hope you are serious when you say "
Science on the other hand is based only on observables." I'd suggest elegantly non-mystical "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, if you aren't joking.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 26/09/2005
It would be nice if you pointed out an example of religion that was not based on mysticism. But, I would guess that one person's example of non-mystic religion would be another person's example of mystical religion.
Religion is obviously in the eye of the beholder and has very little to do with fact.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 26/09/2005
"The mystic sees things that are not part of ordinary experience."
So, Peter and the apostles were mystics, the foundation of Christianity. They saw things that were not part of ordinary experience.
Then, St. Paul was also a mystic as he repeated his experience of being knocked to the ground and he spoke with God.
Similarly, Moses was a mystic who performed the miracles of bringing forth water from the rock and parting the Red Sea etc...
What religion was not founded on some mystic vision?
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 26/09/2005
So what is it
Is Mysticism something that is part of Religion
"It would be nice if you pointed out an example of religion that was not based on mysticism."
Or is Mysticism IDENTICAL to Religion?
"Religious and Mystical are equivilent. "
Which one?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 26/09/2005
You tell me, you countered my argument claiming that they are Venn diagrams intersecting but not overlapping completely. If you are right, then show me an example.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 27/09/2005
Dan: "Is Mysticism something that is part of Religion... Or is Mysticism IDENTICAL to Religion?"
Forbush: "You tell me"
Wow! That's intellectually honest! Way to respond to a question! Keep up the good work!
You have made two apparently contradictory claims. If you are interested in an honest discussion, please resolve the apparent paradox or admit you were somewhat mistaken.
To answer your question: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are three examples.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 28/09/2005
If a religion is founded on a mystical pretext, then the leaders need to back peddle to create the illusion of a factual foundation. The three examples that you stated were founded in mystical beginnings. It is false to claim that they are now based in fact with these beginnings. You are somehow, at it isn't explained by you, saying that these religions are no longer mystical. But, if you drop the mystical beginnings, then the religion no longer has a basis for its existence. Of course, you can be inexact in your understanding of each religion and claim they are no longer mystical. Or, you can forget the details of the beginnings of the religion when it suits your argument. But, the fact remains that true believers still believe St. Paul got knocked off his feet and the Apostles had fire dancing on their heads and spoke in tongues. If you are willing to deny these issues of faith, then and only then can you claim Christianity is no longer mystical.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 28/09/2005
After thinking about your logical argument I will admit that there is a posibility that there could exist a non-mystical religion. This of course would be much different than any religion that I know of. If you have an example please submit it.
1) Such a religion would need to deny all mystical history. All stories such a St. Paul getting knocked down by God. The Apostles speaking in tongues would be assumed to be myths or added later to increase support for the religion.
2b) The mystical idea of God would need to be made consistant with reality. Since observation and communication with God in any way is mystical.
2b) Therefore, prayer would be considered pointless in this non-mystical religion.
3) Ritual of any kind would be considered to have no power other than invoking memory or history.
The only religion that I know of that comes close to any of these things would be Unitarian. However, they still believe in God as a mystical being.
I'm still all ears.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 28/09/2005
Posted by: Serega4356 | 22/01/2009
Post a comment