If Science Proves Certain Theories False Based on Overwhelming Evidence......

[Questioning Physics]

Should science teachers and college professors who knowingly teach and or promote these lies be reprimanded by their superiors with threats to have their credentials removed if they continue to support theories which go against scientific evidence? What do you think?

[ajb]

Should science teachers and college professors who knowingly teach and or promote these lies be reprimanded by their superiors with threats to have their credentials removed if they continue to support theories which go against scientific evidence? What do you think?

Can we have some examples here? What are these lies you are referring to?

[Strange]

It is also worth saying that very few theories are shown to be completely wrong. In most cases a more accurate theory is developed that does not invalidate the previous theory.

 

For example, simple Newtonian mechanics and gravity are taught at school because they are accurate enough for the purpose and far easier to understand than a relativistic treatment. That doesn't make them lies.

 

Now, if a chemistry teacher tried to teach kids about phlogiston ...

 

But it would be worth knowing what theories you are thinking of.

[swansont]

I think anyone promoting creationism in biology class should be canned, but I can't think of another out-and-out wrong theory that might appear in a science class. So I second the call for examples.

 

It is also worth saying that very few theories are shown to be completely wrong. In most cases a more accurate theory is developed that does not invalidate the previous theory.

 

For example, simple Newtonian mechanics and gravity are taught at school because they are accurate enough for the purpose and far easier to understand than a relativistic treatment. That doesn't make them lies.

 

 

And physics still teaches the Bohr model as a bridge to QM, partly because it's a piece of the history of developing QM. Though it's not (generally) taught as being correct, that message doesn't always get through.

[Greg H.]

I would also like to know what specific examples we're dealing with. I can't think of very many scientific theories that are flat out wrong that are still taught seriously at school, except maybe to offer a historical viewpoint on how we arrived at a modern theory.

[CharonY]

The only think I can think of (beside creationism) are simplifications that are often used in highschool and some entry-level courses to introduce concepts. Obviously in fast-changing disciplines certain factoids may need revision, but they rarely are fully fledged out theories.

[elfmotat]

You mean like this guy?.

 

...the eubacterial RNase PH) and the S1 RNA-binding domain proteins Rrp4, Rrp40, and Csl4. We have proposed and are testing the hypothesis that these subunits assemble into multiple independent, functionally interrelated complexes called exozymes. Extending upon this RNA research, I recently compiled an incommensurable, trans-disciplinary, neologistical, axiomatic theory of life from quantum gravity to the living cell.

 

For more on this nonsense see here: http://www.livescience.com/18207-crackpot-theory-reveals-dark-side-peer-review.html . Now, I don't know whether or not he's trying to peddle that crap to his students, but it's literally just as bad as some of the threads we get in the speculations section.

Edited October 31, 2014 by elfmotat

[swansont]

You mean like this guy?.

 

 

For more on this nonsense see here: http://www.livescience.com/18207-crackpot-theory-reveals-dark-side-peer-review.html . Now, I don't know whether or not he's trying to peddle that crap to his students, but it's literally just as bad as some of the threads we get in the speculations section.

 

I think he posted that stuff here, and it is crap, but I don't think there's any evidence he was teaching that to students. Basic research that gets published is generally not what gets taught in classrooms, at least not for a long while, until it gets established.

[elfmotat]

 

I think he posted that stuff here, and it is crap, but I don't think there's any evidence he was teaching that to students. Basic research that gets published is generally not what gets taught in classrooms, at least not for a long while, until it gets established.

 

No, I completely agree with you. What I meant was, I have (and have had) professors who will hint at more speculative stuff if someone asks a related question, or maybe if there's time. I just don't know what mechanisms exist inside the brain of Professor Andrulis to prevent the crazy from "leaking" to students. Clearly establishing a good reputation for himself is not one of his motivations.

[Phi for All]

Should science teachers and college professors who knowingly teach and or promote these lies be reprimanded by their superiors with threats to have their credentials removed if they continue to support theories which go against scientific evidence? What do you think?

 

I'm uncomfortable with this approach to discussion in general. Without identifying what we're talking about specifically, it asks us for a qualitative assessment with little data to go on, and basically begs the question that's being asked behind a veil of righteousness.

 

"Should policemen who enforce laws they know to be wrong have their badges taken away?" No room for context or nuance, without knowing the specific law or laws that prompted the question in the first place.

[elfmotat]

I'm uncomfortable with this approach to discussion in general. Without identifying what we're talking about specifically, it asks us for a qualitative assessment with little data to go on, and basically begs the question that's being asked behind a veil of righteousness.

 

"Should policemen who enforce laws they know to be wrong have their badges taken away?" No room for context or nuance, without knowing the specific law or laws that prompted the question in the first place.

Good point. Notice how every post in this thread has a different interpretation of what the OP means. There are suggestions of creationism, outdated models or models with limited domain of validity, and crackpottery. They're not all the same thing, so we should't treat them as the same thing.

[John Cuthber]

I forget which scientist it was who once said something like "It is sobering to think of all the people who failed exams because they didn't remember something which we later found was wrong anyway"