Yes folks, it's that time of the year already. It's Making Shit Up Awareness Week. This solid week of nonsense coincides, surprisingly, with World Homeopathy Awareness Week (WHAW). That's two coincidences in one, if you get my drift (wink, wink).
Worldhomeopathy.org (work the link out for yourself if you care) tells us that WHAW starts at this time and advises visitors to their site to click on the link for their own country to check local details. I clicked on "Australia" but "it doesn't work". There's a third coincidence for you.
Who says weird things don't come in threes (I think it was Podblack)?
The focus for this year's WHAW is, bizarrely, mental well-being. At least they have a captive set of test subjects among their users. Boom-tish! Sorry, I'm in a catty mood. I shouldn't blame the users. We all do silly things sometimes and it's difficult for some people to see homeopathy for the nonsense it is when governments around the world happily allow it to be taught and practiced as if it were real medicine instead of treating it like bollocks
Theoretically, the whole point of Homeopathy Awareness Week is to make the general public aware of what homeopathy is. So WHAW will, theoretically, involve spreading the word that it's nothing but water, dilute alcohol and/or sugar pills. But theory isn't strong in the Alt-pharma industry, where anecdote rules, so it's going to be left to others to discuss the real pros and cons of this miracle cure-all in which we're supposed to believe water remembers that it once met some arsenic and then pretends to be arsenic - but only in the nicest possible way, of course.
Homeopathic arsenic is literally* arsenic without the arsenic, which is kind of like owning a dog - except without the dog. Sure you can stick a sign on your gate saying "Beware of the Dog" and it can even have one of those Preston Blair bulldogs on it and everything - but it's really no substitute for a real dog is it? So what is it? It's bollocks.
So, in the interests of participation, let's help get the word out about the pros and cons of homeopathy...
First the pros:
Now the cons: It's expensive on a cost-efficacy basis. Sugar is really really cheap until you put a homeopathic label on the bottle. Water is much cheaper - until you label it "homeopathic remedy". Even alcohol doesn't usually get this expensive - not even in those ritzy hotel mini-bars. Oh, and it theoretically can't work unless almost everything we know about chemistry and physics is bollocks. Sure some people say it works but some people reckon they've got a few million dollars waiting for you if you'll just help a hapless freedom fighter in Nigeria to screw over the authorities. Bollocks.
That reminds me, Shorty Award #health winner and all-round mega-star Dr Rachie has decided to spread the word about homeopathy and, as she so eloquently puts it herself, the word is "bollocks".
Help spread the word.
* I try, where possible, as in this case, to use the word "literally", literally. So when I say homeopathic arsenic is *literally* arsenic without the arsenic, I'm not writing figuratively or allegorically or metaphorically or hyperbolically. I mean, seriously, that a mixture of anything greater than 23X or 12C arsenicum is genuinely unlikely to contain a single damned molecule of the stuff that's supposed to be curing you so I think I can get away with saying it literally contains no arsenic.
NOTE: I am neither a scientist nor a doctor. If you want medical advice, see a real doctor.
MORE:
What is homeopathy?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Secret, "secrete" Shopper scams
Ads for secret shoppers or mystery shoppers - or in several cases around the world "secrete/mystery shopper" - are all too often scams in which the scammers make money and, if you participate, you lose.
Typically the process involves the scammer sending job applicants an "employment kit", of sorts, which includes a substantial cheque, usually over $2500. The "employee" is instructed to bank the cheque then send a money transfer for a slightly lower amount to a designated address. The difference is supposed to be your commission, or wage.
This, theoretically, is to "secretly" test the money transfer company.
In reality, the original cheque will bounce and the bank will take back the money from the account of the person who banked it - that's YOU - plus fees. The monjey transfer company is not involved so bear no repsonsibility for your problem.
You are now out of pocket by as much as $2000 which is sitting in someone else's bank account and there's sweet bugger all you can do about it except whinge.
You have been scammed.
The ads typically offer wages of $250-$300 a week (no matter where in the world they appear) and are enticing to someone looking for a bit of part-time work. The offer is made more interesting with offers of things like...
"free meals, free merchandise, free services, free entertainment, free travel"
Although mis-spelling is rife in the online versions of these ads, don't be fooled by professional looking ads in your local paper since these often make it through the system and are published in the belief the job offer is genuine.
Just remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
And, if you see one of these ads in your local rag, contact your Consumer Affairs office and let them know about it.
In WA, contact ScamNet.
MORE.
Typically the process involves the scammer sending job applicants an "employment kit", of sorts, which includes a substantial cheque, usually over $2500. The "employee" is instructed to bank the cheque then send a money transfer for a slightly lower amount to a designated address. The difference is supposed to be your commission, or wage.
This, theoretically, is to "secretly" test the money transfer company.
In reality, the original cheque will bounce and the bank will take back the money from the account of the person who banked it - that's YOU - plus fees. The monjey transfer company is not involved so bear no repsonsibility for your problem.
You are now out of pocket by as much as $2000 which is sitting in someone else's bank account and there's sweet bugger all you can do about it except whinge.
You have been scammed.
The ads typically offer wages of $250-$300 a week (no matter where in the world they appear) and are enticing to someone looking for a bit of part-time work. The offer is made more interesting with offers of things like...
"free meals, free merchandise, free services, free entertainment, free travel"
Although mis-spelling is rife in the online versions of these ads, don't be fooled by professional looking ads in your local paper since these often make it through the system and are published in the belief the job offer is genuine.
Just remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
And, if you see one of these ads in your local rag, contact your Consumer Affairs office and let them know about it.
In WA, contact ScamNet.
MORE.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Gary Ablett should visit a classroom, and listen
In his long-winded, anti-education diatribe apparently aimed at increasing the vitriolic attacks already suffered by outspoken atheists and humanists, footballer Gary Ablett Sr had the following to say about the Theory of Evolution...
Here's a few more theories for Ablett to dismantle in his own (or plagiarised) inimitable style...
According to Ablett and his dimwitted creationist ilk, if something is "only a theory" it should not be allowed to be taught at school. This would, of course, render virtually all of science "out of bounds". Science is built on theories, not guesses or random musings, nor on pontifications from authority and certainly not the magical parables of ancient goatherds. Theories are the bedrock of science.
Here's what the US National Academy of Science has to say on the matter [from wikipedia with my bolding]...
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Ablett's god, on the other hand, is more a theory of the "hunch" kind. God Theories are not backed by any empirical data. They're not testable in any useful sense of the word. Unlike evolution and other scientific theories, God Theories are built on random musings and pontifications from self-appointed authorities - that's why there are so many conflicting "Theories of God".
God Theory relies, fundamentally, on the blind acceptance of magic even when such acceptance requires an abandonment of obvious reality. Science on the other hand, requires that theories remain subservient to reality.
The theory of Ablett's God is based on the word of one or more people who claimed, centuries ago, to have spoken to that god or versions of him, or her, (and it should be noted that the particular god in question changes depending on whose god theory you choose to believe), and who then insist that other people should just believe that they really did speak to a god. Further to this, people are then expected to do what the prophet claims that god told them they should do.
That theory should likely never see the inside of a classroom except perhaps in Media class where the topic of the day is "comedy".
Today, when someone claims to be speaking directly to the gods, or demons, rational people tend to look for an appropriate facility in which to house them. Gary Ablett Sr, on the other hand, seems to think we should listen to them, take note of what they claim and then teach their insane ravings to our children as "science".
Hours later, Alisha Horan was dead. It took three years for Ablett to tell the truth about events that night.
Ablett's fall into a world of drug abuse suggests that he might well be a follower rather than a thinker. His "new-found" religion doesn't make him a better human being than those he seeks to disparage in his article. Many of those humanists who he seems to think are responsible for the world's evils are not engaged in drug abuse or other illicit acts resulting in the deaths of young adults yet, somehow, Ablett has decided that because they don't share his religion, they are "the problem".
There is a recurring theme among religious fundamentalists that "you can't be good without God". It appears that might well have been true for Ablett, who clearly demonstrated little sense of respect or responsibility for himself or others before he found the Bible, but that doesn't mean the rest of us cannot have conscience and morals without his god. Some of us get along quite nicely without the threat of eternal punishment.
And no amount of demonising science is going to suddenly make the world a better place - it's not like the world was completely devoid of conflict before Darwin dared to write about his thoughts on common descent. Even Jesus, if he existed, would testify to that!
So why would a mainstream Australian newspaper give Ablett column space to apparently try and mess with the heads of even more vulnerable people who might still think he's worthy of respect?
He could kick a football, so what?
MORE:
Derren Hinch is equally unimpressed with Ablett
"If it was only ever a theory, how did it find its way into our classrooms and society as fact?"
Here's a few more theories for Ablett to dismantle in his own (or plagiarised) inimitable style...
- Modern Atomic Theory
- Kinetic Molecular Theory
- Germ Theory of Disease
- Big Bang Theory
- Theory of Evolution
- Theory of Gravity
- Cell Theory
- Theories of Relativity
- Plate Tectonic Theory
- Quantum Mechanical Theory
- String Theory
- Unified Field Theory
According to Ablett and his dimwitted creationist ilk, if something is "only a theory" it should not be allowed to be taught at school. This would, of course, render virtually all of science "out of bounds". Science is built on theories, not guesses or random musings, nor on pontifications from authority and certainly not the magical parables of ancient goatherds. Theories are the bedrock of science.
Here's what the US National Academy of Science has to say on the matter [from wikipedia with my bolding]...
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Ablett's god, on the other hand, is more a theory of the "hunch" kind. God Theories are not backed by any empirical data. They're not testable in any useful sense of the word. Unlike evolution and other scientific theories, God Theories are built on random musings and pontifications from self-appointed authorities - that's why there are so many conflicting "Theories of God".
God Theory relies, fundamentally, on the blind acceptance of magic even when such acceptance requires an abandonment of obvious reality. Science on the other hand, requires that theories remain subservient to reality.
The theory of Ablett's God is based on the word of one or more people who claimed, centuries ago, to have spoken to that god or versions of him, or her, (and it should be noted that the particular god in question changes depending on whose god theory you choose to believe), and who then insist that other people should just believe that they really did speak to a god. Further to this, people are then expected to do what the prophet claims that god told them they should do.
That theory should likely never see the inside of a classroom except perhaps in Media class where the topic of the day is "comedy".
Today, when someone claims to be speaking directly to the gods, or demons, rational people tend to look for an appropriate facility in which to house them. Gary Ablett Sr, on the other hand, seems to think we should listen to them, take note of what they claim and then teach their insane ravings to our children as "science".
Ablett's fall into a world of drug abuse suggests that he might well be a follower rather than a thinker.So who is Gary Ablett Sr, and why should we listen to his moralistic outpourings in this week's newspaper? Here's a snippet of a story from 2003 in The Age (I believe this might be one of the incidents Ablett dismisses in his article as one of his "not so successful" moments)...
Gary Ablett empties the plastic bag of heroin onto the table in room 1265 at the Park Hyatt Hotel in Melbourne.
He lays out four or five lines - including a "big, long one" for himself - and rolls up a bank note to snort them with. At this moment, Alisha Horan comes out of the bathroom.
"Basically she caught me with it," says the former football champion. "She asked what it was. I didn't really want her knowing that it was what it was.
"And I told her it was cocaine. And she wanted some."
Ablett and Ms Horan, 20, an infatuated fan, are already "wasted" from a day and night-long binge of alcohol and ecstasy. He was, he says, drunk and tired and not thinking straight, but he didn't want Ms Horan to use heroin. "I only gave her a very tiny amount."
Hours later, Alisha Horan was dead. It took three years for Ablett to tell the truth about events that night.
Ablett's fall into a world of drug abuse suggests that he might well be a follower rather than a thinker. His "new-found" religion doesn't make him a better human being than those he seeks to disparage in his article. Many of those humanists who he seems to think are responsible for the world's evils are not engaged in drug abuse or other illicit acts resulting in the deaths of young adults yet, somehow, Ablett has decided that because they don't share his religion, they are "the problem".
There is a recurring theme among religious fundamentalists that "you can't be good without God". It appears that might well have been true for Ablett, who clearly demonstrated little sense of respect or responsibility for himself or others before he found the Bible, but that doesn't mean the rest of us cannot have conscience and morals without his god. Some of us get along quite nicely without the threat of eternal punishment.
And no amount of demonising science is going to suddenly make the world a better place - it's not like the world was completely devoid of conflict before Darwin dared to write about his thoughts on common descent. Even Jesus, if he existed, would testify to that!
So why would a mainstream Australian newspaper give Ablett column space to apparently try and mess with the heads of even more vulnerable people who might still think he's worthy of respect?
He could kick a football, so what?
MORE:
Derren Hinch is equally unimpressed with Ablett
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sylvia Browne show: Classic irony
A report in Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel carries a story in which life imitates comedy...
Ouch! Is this proof that spirit guides have a wicked sense of humour or that Browne is as psychic as a ute load of sheep manure?
Found at JREF
The "Up Close & Personal" show featuring Montel Williams and psychic Sylvia Browne scheduled for Monday at the Milwaukee Theatre has been canceled. The promoter blamed "unforeseen circumstances."
Ouch! Is this proof that spirit guides have a wicked sense of humour or that Browne is as psychic as a ute load of sheep manure?
Found at JREF
Ablett: out of bounds
We've probably all seen those teen movies where the football team are portrayed as brain-dead morons who get through college only because of their sporting prowess. At times it's tempting to assume the "jock" stereotype is grossly unfair - but then a footy star opens his mouth and all those movies start to look like documentaries.
Today it's Aussie footy hero Gary Ablett pontificating on science and the supposed lies we teach our kids about biology. He's lucky he could play footy because he has no future in science education.
Ablett says he doesn't do science then, with a swift "however", goes on to argue that because new life has never spontaneously arisen in a jar of peanut butter, the scientific theories of abiogenesis are wrong. Like Ray Comfort's "bananas by miraculous design" argument, the "peanut butter abiogenesis" theory has been around a while and has been slam dunked many times over but Ablett doesn't let that stop him restating it in a national newspaper article as if it had merit.
We'll ignore, for the moment, Abblett's confusion between evolution and abiogenesis, the former not being possible until after the latter has occurred. What Ablett fails to realise is that even if he could, by some small miracle, disprove the theory of evolution, he still hasn't proved his god any more than he's proved the theory of Bumba vomiting the universe and all its lifeforms into existence
Ablett seems unperturbed by the fact that no man has ever been seen to spontaneously arise from dust and no woman from a rib bone, thereby disproving the biblical account of Genesis by the same "logic" he applies to scientific theory. He's also debunked the biblical theory of immaculate conception with the same argument.
And if he thinks the food industry is glad that peanut butter doesn't spontaneously generate microbial lifeforms, I wonder if he can begin to imagine how much worse things would be if dust kept magically generating full-grown advanced lifeforms? How can he laugh at the scientific theory while wholeheartedly accepting the possibility that an adult Tyrannosaurus might burst out of his vacuum cleaner at any moment?
I've nothing more to add since this has been covered by lots of people from Young Australian Skeptics to Pharyngula.
Today it's Aussie footy hero Gary Ablett pontificating on science and the supposed lies we teach our kids about biology. He's lucky he could play footy because he has no future in science education.
Ablett says he doesn't do science then, with a swift "however", goes on to argue that because new life has never spontaneously arisen in a jar of peanut butter, the scientific theories of abiogenesis are wrong. Like Ray Comfort's "bananas by miraculous design" argument, the "peanut butter abiogenesis" theory has been around a while and has been slam dunked many times over but Ablett doesn't let that stop him restating it in a national newspaper article as if it had merit.
We'll ignore, for the moment, Abblett's confusion between evolution and abiogenesis, the former not being possible until after the latter has occurred. What Ablett fails to realise is that even if he could, by some small miracle, disprove the theory of evolution, he still hasn't proved his god any more than he's proved the theory of Bumba vomiting the universe and all its lifeforms into existence
Ablett seems unperturbed by the fact that no man has ever been seen to spontaneously arise from dust and no woman from a rib bone, thereby disproving the biblical account of Genesis by the same "logic" he applies to scientific theory. He's also debunked the biblical theory of immaculate conception with the same argument.
And if he thinks the food industry is glad that peanut butter doesn't spontaneously generate microbial lifeforms, I wonder if he can begin to imagine how much worse things would be if dust kept magically generating full-grown advanced lifeforms? How can he laugh at the scientific theory while wholeheartedly accepting the possibility that an adult Tyrannosaurus might burst out of his vacuum cleaner at any moment?
I've nothing more to add since this has been covered by lots of people from Young Australian Skeptics to Pharyngula.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Oz hospital employs magic medicine?
Maggie (aka Dr Rachie) over at the Skeptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh reports that a Victorian hospital has decided to hire a naturopath while also admitting there is a complete lack of evidence for the usefulness of naturopathy.
Rumours that the same hospital is also hiring David Copperfield in the cancer ward, after hearing he can make things mysteriously disappear, have so far proved to be unfounded.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Science? You're Dreaming!
Last week I wrote about the Australian Government's unveiling of its draft national science curriculum which was to include topics like Aboriginal Dreamtime stories and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). It appears a little sanity has crept into the system since then, and not a moment too soon...
Professor Barry McGaw who headed the curriculum team was apparently unaware the topic had been included and has said it will be removed as the Dreamtime is religion, not science.
It should have been obvious to anyone that shoe-horning religion into the science class was a dangerous move that would open the door for other religions to demand equal treatment for their dreams. And indeed, that's exactly what did happen. In a commentary on the draft guidelines for science, Christian Today Australia wrote...
...in the SCIENCE classroom!!! Maybe they should also discuss the biological role of unicorns and how babies come from storks that leave them in the cabbage patch. Perpetual motion machines would be assumed to be possible and the world would be flat and centred in a universe that revolves around it. And astrology and clairvoyance and crystal healing and, well, anything anyone, anywhere, thinks is a pretty neat idea.
At the very least the science curriculum would have had to offer the views of other religions, and their many gods, if it was to avoid all charges of discrimination. This would, by necessity, have included the theory of Odin, the supposed father of all gods and creator of darned-near everything else to boot and the contrary idea that the universe was created when Bumba vomited it into existence.
Religious ideas of how things came to be might once have made absolute sense but that is no longer the case. We now have a better, more reliable, way of understanding that relies on assessing the evidence and being willing to change our view when the evidence suggests we should. Religion doesn't allow for its core ideas to be trashed in accordance with the evidence.
Science has superseded superstition. Dogma is no longer the sole criterion by which ideas are examined.
The only way things like the Dreamtime or the Christian creation story, or Bumba's upset tummy for that matter, should be mentioned in a science class is in a historical sense of how people thought before science showed the way to study reality. And if these creation stories were part of the curriculum then students should also have it carefully explained to them why each "theory" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I don''t think anyone imagines the government intended for that to happen, nor do I think the Christians would have considered it so favourably.
"Dan Buzzard" commented on Sean the Blogoanaut's blog that he'd like to see the following question on a science exam...
It's an excellent question but would need to be expanded considerably to accommodate all possible belief options.
Of course, the decision to drop the Dreamtime has been welcomed with mixed blessings in some quarters...
If Christians had anywhere near as much evidence for creation as science has for evolution, then creation WOULD be taught as science. One book, written a couple of thousand years ago just doesn't cut it. If we drop evolution because "it's just a theory" then we'll have almost no science left. Atoms are "only a theory" as are germs, gravity and plate tectonics - not to mention relativity!
The Dreamtime is out but it doesn't end here. The draft curriculum still leaves the door open for nonsense to be slipped in as if it had the backing of science. One topic which has been highlighted in the press is the teaching of Traditional Chinese Medicine, apparently as if were were a valid mode of healing just because some "cultures" might "believe" it is. But there are moves to have the science curriculum tidied up so that it focuses solely, strangely enough, on science...
Will the federal government listen or is science to become a soft subject with little relevance to reality?
Maybe they'll listen...
In other news, Sean the Blogonaut reports on the response by religious South Australian schools to the news they'll no longer be able to teach their own pet beliefs as science.
The study of Aboriginal Dreamtime stories will be removed from the science component of the new national curriculum.
Professor Barry McGaw who headed the curriculum team was apparently unaware the topic had been included and has said it will be removed as the Dreamtime is religion, not science.
It should have been obvious to anyone that shoe-horning religion into the science class was a dangerous move that would open the door for other religions to demand equal treatment for their dreams. And indeed, that's exactly what did happen. In a commentary on the draft guidelines for science, Christian Today Australia wrote...
“For instance, if Dreamtime stories about the world’s origins are to be included, then children should also discuss the Bible story of creation."
...in the SCIENCE classroom!!! Maybe they should also discuss the biological role of unicorns and how babies come from storks that leave them in the cabbage patch. Perpetual motion machines would be assumed to be possible and the world would be flat and centred in a universe that revolves around it. And astrology and clairvoyance and crystal healing and, well, anything anyone, anywhere, thinks is a pretty neat idea.
The Dreamtime is out but it doesn't end here.
At the very least the science curriculum would have had to offer the views of other religions, and their many gods, if it was to avoid all charges of discrimination. This would, by necessity, have included the theory of Odin, the supposed father of all gods and creator of darned-near everything else to boot and the contrary idea that the universe was created when Bumba vomited it into existence.
Religious ideas of how things came to be might once have made absolute sense but that is no longer the case. We now have a better, more reliable, way of understanding that relies on assessing the evidence and being willing to change our view when the evidence suggests we should. Religion doesn't allow for its core ideas to be trashed in accordance with the evidence.
Science has superseded superstition. Dogma is no longer the sole criterion by which ideas are examined.
The only way things like the Dreamtime or the Christian creation story, or Bumba's upset tummy for that matter, should be mentioned in a science class is in a historical sense of how people thought before science showed the way to study reality. And if these creation stories were part of the curriculum then students should also have it carefully explained to them why each "theory" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I don''t think anyone imagines the government intended for that to happen, nor do I think the Christians would have considered it so favourably.
"Dan Buzzard" commented on Sean the Blogoanaut's blog that he'd like to see the following question on a science exam...
Approximately how old is the earth?
- 4.6 Billion Years
- 6 Thousand Years
- All of the above
It's an excellent question but would need to be expanded considerably to accommodate all possible belief options.
Of course, the decision to drop the Dreamtime has been welcomed with mixed blessings in some quarters...
Will Professor McGaw, in fairness, be deleting Evolution – another “religious or spiritual interpretation” – as well?
If Christians had anywhere near as much evidence for creation as science has for evolution, then creation WOULD be taught as science. One book, written a couple of thousand years ago just doesn't cut it. If we drop evolution because "it's just a theory" then we'll have almost no science left. Atoms are "only a theory" as are germs, gravity and plate tectonics - not to mention relativity!
The Dreamtime is out but it doesn't end here. The draft curriculum still leaves the door open for nonsense to be slipped in as if it had the backing of science. One topic which has been highlighted in the press is the teaching of Traditional Chinese Medicine, apparently as if were were a valid mode of healing just because some "cultures" might "believe" it is. But there are moves to have the science curriculum tidied up so that it focuses solely, strangely enough, on science...
WA Nobel Prize laureate Barry Marshall has expressed concerns about the draft national curriculum for science, saying parts of it are vague, not evidence-based and pave the way for non-scientific elements to be taught in classrooms.
Dr Marshall, who in 2005 was awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine with fellow scientist Robin Warren, said the Science as a Human Endeavour category in the course could allow teachers to teach "all kinds of weird things which are not based on scientific evidence".
Will the federal government listen or is science to become a soft subject with little relevance to reality?
Maybe they'll listen...
In other news, Sean the Blogonaut reports on the response by religious South Australian schools to the news they'll no longer be able to teach their own pet beliefs as science.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Can sceptics ever hope to win?
While writing my previous article about the nonsense for sale at Wagin Woolorama, I went looking for an article about magnetic water purifiers that I vaguely recalled reading on Daniel Rutter's excellent site. The article in question was actually about magnetic wine purifiers but also mentioned the water purifiers (it's worth noting the water purifiers are also sold as fuel conditioners - is there anything they can't fix?).
Dan linked to a website that he considered offered "amusing" examples of what he labelled "pseudoscientific jargon". I, in a moment of clear stupidity, clicked the link.
Here's just one piece of consumer information about "Quantum Harmonic BioSupport Technology" available on that site...
Now seriously, fellow sceptics, if people will buy into "emphasizing the natural love harmonics" and believe it possible to "restore natural supportive coherent environmental energies", whatever they are, do we stand the slightest chance of ever winning the war against gullibility?
I don't think we can and here's why...
The flibberty gibberty nonsporadical indexed collateral quantised pherlentines are always, permanently and chronically chelatemised if and when we consider the juxtaposed energetics of the illustrated carbonification of the palindrome.
You see what I mean? We can't win. We just don't have the way with words that our opponents do. That's a quantum fact supported by German scientists.
Dan linked to a website that he considered offered "amusing" examples of what he labelled "pseudoscientific jargon". I, in a moment of clear stupidity, clicked the link.
Here's just one piece of consumer information about "Quantum Harmonic BioSupport Technology" available on that site...
Quantum Harmonic BioSupport Technology is unique in that it is naturally accessing supportive harmonics of the highest vibrations found in the environment. The technology itself does not contain the accessed energies, rather acts like a receiver and an amplifier, much like a radio only in the quantum energy dimension. This also explains why this technology allows the body to access and utilize what it desires, much like homeopathy, increasing the natural bio-photon coherent energy field around the body of each individual. Whether it is emphasizing the natural love harmonics now found in E crystal technology, or the area clearing harmonics neutralizing negative geopathics and electrical fields in the Quantum eCrystal Salt Lamps, this is extraordinary technology. Safe for all living things, this technology is the best answer to restore natural supportive coherent environmental energies artificially depressed by man's technologies and thoughts.
Now seriously, fellow sceptics, if people will buy into "emphasizing the natural love harmonics" and believe it possible to "restore natural supportive coherent environmental energies", whatever they are, do we stand the slightest chance of ever winning the war against gullibility?
I don't think we can and here's why...
The flibberty gibberty nonsporadical indexed collateral quantised pherlentines are always, permanently and chronically chelatemised if and when we consider the juxtaposed energetics of the illustrated carbonification of the palindrome.
You see what I mean? We can't win. We just don't have the way with words that our opponents do. That's a quantum fact supported by German scientists.
Woo-orama: Ag-Show nonsense for sale
Wagin is a small rural town in Western Australia. Each year it hosts the Wagin Woolorama, a major agricultural fair featuring everything from sheep to art to jam to educational opportunities to combine harvesters. This year I noticed something I hadn't noticed before (probably because I don't pay attention) - lots of people selling various forms of supposed pain relief.
In one pavilion I saw a stand offering some sort of a bio-magnetic pain relief, another promoting the LifeWave energy patch and associated "products", a TENS pain relief stand, Genki therapy plus a couple of other stands offering either vibrating things, massage or heat to deliver pain relief (farmers do it tough so I guess pain relief might be popular at an agricultural show).
A common theme among quite a few of them was acupressure points and they displayed sciencey-looking posters showing how technical it all was - but each offered a different solution to the same problem.
Strangely, none of them had paracetamol - well, not for sale anyway. Also, there were no heart surgeons or chemotherapists advertising their wares. Not even a GP advertising their particular approach to pain relief or anything else. I guess that despite the claims of the alt-med community, reality-based medicine isn't really a profit-by-any-means industry. If alt-med, on the other hand, is so good, why do they have to try so hard to sell it? I suppose there's a massive conspiracy against it - what was I thinking!?!
As I walked past the Genki Therapy stand, I noticed a bare-backed man lying face-down on a massage table. He had two clear cup-like objects on his lower back. Their angle suggested they were held there, not just resting. I assume he was undergoing "cupping" in which cups attached by vacuum pressure are supposed to unblock your qi and, of course, suck out those dreaded toxins the alt-med community insist we're all infested with and which our liver and kidneys are apparently unable to deal with in their usual role of ridding us of the toxins we're all infested with.
I wandered past, slightly bemused - then one of the cups fell off! I wondered if I should run and hide to protect myself from all the bad toxic energy that must surely escape and go looking for new bodies to infect. I didn't bother. But now that I think about it, what does happen to all those toxins? The cup is open. There's no hermetically-sealed chamber or safe-disposal bin. The cup just comes off and any air inside it, toxic or not, is free to go right back into the body it just came out of - or into the surrounding air to be inhaled by the practitioner or, in this case, a passer-by like me. Now I've scared myself! I didn't run and hide.
To top the day off, far away in a separate pavilion was a bunch of people offering a free stress test. Then I saw what they were selling - Dianetics! There was even an E-Meter and I overheard some hard-sell patter promising that the DVD they were selling contains all the information they'll ever need to solve all their stress-related problems. Other than L Ron Hubbard's name on the DVDs, there was no mention anywhere of Dianetics' links with Scientology. I so wanted to get a free test but time and other priorities won out.
I didn't see it myself but I believe another stand was selling magnets to clean your water pipes. This is an interesting area, scientifically speaking, but the general consensus appears to be that just sticking a couple of magnets on a pipe will do nothing to purify the water that runs through it. I know you're surprised because we should know by now that magnets can solve every problem.
So, one doesn't need to go to a psychic fair to get a dose of nonsense, it seems it's available anywhere there's a commercial opportunity to flog it to unsuspecting consumers.
In one pavilion I saw a stand offering some sort of a bio-magnetic pain relief, another promoting the LifeWave energy patch and associated "products", a TENS pain relief stand, Genki therapy plus a couple of other stands offering either vibrating things, massage or heat to deliver pain relief (farmers do it tough so I guess pain relief might be popular at an agricultural show).
A common theme among quite a few of them was acupressure points and they displayed sciencey-looking posters showing how technical it all was - but each offered a different solution to the same problem.
Strangely, none of them had paracetamol - well, not for sale anyway. Also, there were no heart surgeons or chemotherapists advertising their wares. Not even a GP advertising their particular approach to pain relief or anything else. I guess that despite the claims of the alt-med community, reality-based medicine isn't really a profit-by-any-means industry. If alt-med, on the other hand, is so good, why do they have to try so hard to sell it? I suppose there's a massive conspiracy against it - what was I thinking!?!
As I walked past the Genki Therapy stand, I noticed a bare-backed man lying face-down on a massage table. He had two clear cup-like objects on his lower back. Their angle suggested they were held there, not just resting. I assume he was undergoing "cupping" in which cups attached by vacuum pressure are supposed to unblock your qi and, of course, suck out those dreaded toxins the alt-med community insist we're all infested with and which our liver and kidneys are apparently unable to deal with in their usual role of ridding us of the toxins we're all infested with.
I wandered past, slightly bemused - then one of the cups fell off! I wondered if I should run and hide to protect myself from all the bad toxic energy that must surely escape and go looking for new bodies to infect. I didn't bother. But now that I think about it, what does happen to all those toxins? The cup is open. There's no hermetically-sealed chamber or safe-disposal bin. The cup just comes off and any air inside it, toxic or not, is free to go right back into the body it just came out of - or into the surrounding air to be inhaled by the practitioner or, in this case, a passer-by like me. Now I've scared myself! I didn't run and hide.
To top the day off, far away in a separate pavilion was a bunch of people offering a free stress test. Then I saw what they were selling - Dianetics! There was even an E-Meter and I overheard some hard-sell patter promising that the DVD they were selling contains all the information they'll ever need to solve all their stress-related problems. Other than L Ron Hubbard's name on the DVDs, there was no mention anywhere of Dianetics' links with Scientology. I so wanted to get a free test but time and other priorities won out.
I didn't see it myself but I believe another stand was selling magnets to clean your water pipes. This is an interesting area, scientifically speaking, but the general consensus appears to be that just sticking a couple of magnets on a pipe will do nothing to purify the water that runs through it. I know you're surprised because we should know by now that magnets can solve every problem.
So, one doesn't need to go to a psychic fair to get a dose of nonsense, it seems it's available anywhere there's a commercial opportunity to flog it to unsuspecting consumers.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Dr Rachie: A Shorty winner speaks
Dr Rachie (aka Dr Rachael "with an a" Dunlop) has broken her silence after her monumental win in the Shorty Awards - perhaps the most important awards in the history of world.
Shenanigans, subterfuge and the Shorty Awards
Her alt-med opponents Dr Joseph "gormless grin" Mercola and Mike "it's mine, it's mine, it's mine" Adams, on the other hand, have been strangely quiet since the award announcements.
Silent during the voting saga, reality-based Dr Rachie now tells the whole story as she saw it unfold. She also has a list of links to several mainstream media reports of her win.
I'm not sure what the future holds for Dr Rachie who may well turn her back on scientific research after this win. After all, who needs a Nobel Prize when you've got a Shorty?
Congratulations Dr Rachie.
It remains the case that, with 143 votes, Dr Mercola was the leader in the Quackery category and it seems unfair for him to go home empty-handed just because no award was given. So here you go Joe...
Shenanigans, subterfuge and the Shorty Awards
Her alt-med opponents Dr Joseph "gormless grin" Mercola and Mike "it's mine, it's mine, it's mine" Adams, on the other hand, have been strangely quiet since the award announcements.
Silent during the voting saga, reality-based Dr Rachie now tells the whole story as she saw it unfold. She also has a list of links to several mainstream media reports of her win.
I'm not sure what the future holds for Dr Rachie who may well turn her back on scientific research after this win. After all, who needs a Nobel Prize when you've got a Shorty?
Congratulations Dr Rachie.
It remains the case that, with 143 votes, Dr Mercola was the leader in the Quackery category and it seems unfair for him to go home empty-handed just because no award was given. So here you go Joe...
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Congratulations Dr Rachael Dunlop
Last night, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I posted that Dr Rachie had won the Shorty Award for health. I was only messing around with a prediction for the sake of writing something since the announcements were only hours away.
Once again, my non-existent spirit guides have proved themselves far superior to those of professional "psychics". Dr Rachie did indeed win the award.
Dr Joseph "I hafta win" Mercola had pleaded for votes in the lead-up polls, urging his Facebook and Twitter followers to get friends and relatives to support him so he could show the evidence-based science community a thing or two about how real life works. He failed. Despite his concerted effort, he remained in second place behind our own Dr Rachie - who didn't campaign at all.
Now the award organisers have also snubbed him and chosen Dr Rachie as the ultimate winner in the #health category.
I'll try to keep an eye out on Mercola's Facebook page to see if the award is as important to him now as it was just a few weeks ago. My spirit guides tell me he'll dismiss it as a pointless poll (which it probably is but he didn't seem to think so for a while there). His friend Mike "it's a conspiracy" Adams may well blow yet another fuse with a tirade against science, reality and anyone he can connect with Rachael's win.
Where's the popcorn?
Wait? What's that? My spirit guides are showing me a "J name", like John or James. Does that mean anything to you, perhaps a father figure like a dad or uncle or grandfather maybe?
UPDATE:
See all the Shorty winners and finalists here.
Once again, my non-existent spirit guides have proved themselves far superior to those of professional "psychics". Dr Rachie did indeed win the award.
Dr Joseph "I hafta win" Mercola had pleaded for votes in the lead-up polls, urging his Facebook and Twitter followers to get friends and relatives to support him so he could show the evidence-based science community a thing or two about how real life works. He failed. Despite his concerted effort, he remained in second place behind our own Dr Rachie - who didn't campaign at all.
Now the award organisers have also snubbed him and chosen Dr Rachie as the ultimate winner in the #health category.
I'll try to keep an eye out on Mercola's Facebook page to see if the award is as important to him now as it was just a few weeks ago. My spirit guides tell me he'll dismiss it as a pointless poll (which it probably is but he didn't seem to think so for a while there). His friend Mike "it's a conspiracy" Adams may well blow yet another fuse with a tirade against science, reality and anyone he can connect with Rachael's win.
Where's the popcorn?
Wait? What's that? My spirit guides are showing me a "J name", like John or James. Does that mean anything to you, perhaps a father figure like a dad or uncle or grandfather maybe?
UPDATE:
See all the Shorty winners and finalists here.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Dr Rachie WINS the Shorty Award!!!
The Shorty Award winners will be announced soon and my spirit guides assure me Dr Rachael Dunlop has got it in the bag in the #health category.
Actually, I just made it up because I like that heading - but it's going to look impressive if I'm right.
For those who haven't followed the action so far (you don't know what you've missed), the Shorties are a largely irrelevant Twitter Poll - basically a contest to see who can find the most supporters among existing Twitter members. Like politics, your supporters don't have to know the first thing about you they just have to cast a vote in your direction in the hope of seeing you beat someone they don't want to win (that's not to say Rachael doesn't deserve to win, it's just an observation of the system).
Dr Rachie lead the #health category at the end of rounds one and two, after the now-infamous expulsion of alt-med guru Mike "Dummy Spit" Adams and the trouncing of Dr Joseph "I don't care but pleeeeeeease vote for me" Mercola who ate her dust in second place.
If the universe cares at all for our entertainment, Dr Rachie will be awarded the win. We haven't seen an alt-med head explode for a few weeks.
Don't forget to check the winner in the #quackery category too. Mercola might get the win he so desperately wanted, if any prize is awarded. Take note too that Dr Mercola managed to steal the lead in the categories of #woo, #voterigging and the interestingly named #mythicalhalfdrinkhalffish.
Actually, I just made it up because I like that heading - but it's going to look impressive if I'm right.
For those who haven't followed the action so far (you don't know what you've missed), the Shorties are a largely irrelevant Twitter Poll - basically a contest to see who can find the most supporters among existing Twitter members. Like politics, your supporters don't have to know the first thing about you they just have to cast a vote in your direction in the hope of seeing you beat someone they don't want to win (that's not to say Rachael doesn't deserve to win, it's just an observation of the system).
Dr Rachie lead the #health category at the end of rounds one and two, after the now-infamous expulsion of alt-med guru Mike "Dummy Spit" Adams and the trouncing of Dr Joseph "I don't care but pleeeeeeease vote for me" Mercola who ate her dust in second place.
If the universe cares at all for our entertainment, Dr Rachie will be awarded the win. We haven't seen an alt-med head explode for a few weeks.
Don't forget to check the winner in the #quackery category too. Mercola might get the win he so desperately wanted, if any prize is awarded. Take note too that Dr Mercola managed to steal the lead in the categories of #woo, #voterigging and the interestingly named #mythicalhalfdrinkhalffish.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Richard Dawkins - "OOPS!"
Ray Comfort once described world-renowned atheist Richard Dawkins as the sitting Pope of the religion of evolution.
Events of the last week demonstrate just how wrong, as usual, Comfort was.
I'm not a member of Dawkins RDF forums and rarely visit there. In fact, I usually only end up there after following a link on someone's blog, usually when "major issues" hit the sceptical and atheist blogosphere.
But last week it appears the RDF forums imploded. Actually, the way the mess is spreading across the internet (and even mainstream media), it might be more accurately described as having exploded.
The short story is that the forums were to be closed in favour of a new comment-based format in which new topics would be moderated, or selected. The slightly longer story is that there was apparently no early warning for, or discussion with, forum members. The even longer story is that volunteer moderators and administrators of the forum were allegedly told little more than members about the change, despite asking for information. The end result was a series of complaints and a sudden end to the forum which was switched to read-only. This generated even more vitriol, obviously posted elsewhere, then Dawkins wrote of his own "outrage" at the way his staff member Josh Timonen was being demonised because of "something so trivial".
I found out about the saga when PZ Myers mentioned it on his blog...
I so do not want to get sucked into the drama
Myers explained to his readers that the forum belonged to Dawkins and Dawkins could do as he pleased with it. His plea to not get sucked into the drama would fall on deaf ears and tonight he's posted a follow-up...
I hope this resolves the whole mess
Myers links to an apology from Richard Dawkins who explains that he realises "we" have cocked up and apologises for the lack of communication and his "outrage" response to the disquiet.
Myers is doing his best to support his friend and colleague but this has seen his own readers turn the blowtorch onto him.
In an effort to find out more about the events that ignited the situation I went searching. This blog article by Peter Harrison, one of the RDF forum volunteer administrators, lays out the events as he experienced them. If there is a gram of truth to his account of the events then it's easier to understand the level of vitriol that has resulted for Dawkins, Timonen and now, Myers...
In response to the unanimous criticisms, Josh started playing with the settings in the forum. First he deactivated private messaging. This caused a major problem, as members were starting to share personal details so that they can keep in touch with good friends if the forum really did end up closing. Members also filled their signatures with details and where to find members after the forum had closed. Josh went on to lock viewable access to the forum. For a while, nobody could do anything. With the forum all to themselves, Josh and Andrew deleted any posts that criticised the decision. Next, they removed signatures so that other forums and meeting places could not be advertised. When all of this was done, Josh and Andrew reopened the forum in a read-only state. Nobody could post anymore, and the complaints thread had been completely deleted.
We all know how the atheist and sceptical communities just love censorship in all its forms, don't we? So this was presumably the end of the matter and everyone got on with their real lives, away from the internet... didn't they?
Harrison continues...
To make things worse, Josh and Andrew started deleting members. The moderator who explained that the staff were innocent and treated so disrespectfully, Mazille, had his entire account deleted. This isn’t like a ban where you can no longer access the forum. When an account is deleted, all the user’s posts are deleted too. Mazille had thousands of posts that he was hoping to archive over the next 30 days. All gone, forever. They aren’t in a Recycle Bin of sorts. Next was CJ, a member who had been posting on the front page to explain what Josh was up to and that he was hiding the criticisms and the evidence that the moderating team were lied to and censored. Tens of thousands of posts lost forever. Josh and Andrew permanently deleted several users before starting to remove moderating permissions from the loyal staff.
Harrison's article has over 240 comments. I haven't read them all but they don't look good for Dawkins.
In a second article, Harrison explains why he feels Dawkins is being kept in the dark about the debacle.
Richard Dawkins is currently in Australia on a promotional tour and to speak at the Atheist Convention. It will be interesting see what reception he gets if things don't settle down soon back home.
But seriously, would Catholics ever subject their Pope to this sort of public scrutiny, acrimony or vitriol? Tell me again how evolution is a religion with Richard Dawkins as its Pope!
I think it's interesting that, from the outside, it surely appears that the sceptical community has its heroes, or Popes.
People like James Randi and Richard Dawkins do enjoy massive support and are put on a pedestal as they push the sceptical message far more publicly than most of us could do individually. But they aren't considered infallible. They are not our spiritual leaders. We don't all fall at their feet regardless of what they do or say. When they screw up they cop flack just as if they'd said the Earth was flat. Randi found out how tough his "followers" are when he publicly questioned global warming and Dawkins is finding out what happens when you dismiss a large part of your "fan base" as trivial.
Events of the last week demonstrate just how wrong, as usual, Comfort was.
I'm not a member of Dawkins RDF forums and rarely visit there. In fact, I usually only end up there after following a link on someone's blog, usually when "major issues" hit the sceptical and atheist blogosphere.
But last week it appears the RDF forums imploded. Actually, the way the mess is spreading across the internet (and even mainstream media), it might be more accurately described as having exploded.
The short story is that the forums were to be closed in favour of a new comment-based format in which new topics would be moderated, or selected. The slightly longer story is that there was apparently no early warning for, or discussion with, forum members. The even longer story is that volunteer moderators and administrators of the forum were allegedly told little more than members about the change, despite asking for information. The end result was a series of complaints and a sudden end to the forum which was switched to read-only. This generated even more vitriol, obviously posted elsewhere, then Dawkins wrote of his own "outrage" at the way his staff member Josh Timonen was being demonised because of "something so trivial".
I found out about the saga when PZ Myers mentioned it on his blog...
I so do not want to get sucked into the drama
Myers explained to his readers that the forum belonged to Dawkins and Dawkins could do as he pleased with it. His plea to not get sucked into the drama would fall on deaf ears and tonight he's posted a follow-up...
I hope this resolves the whole mess
Myers links to an apology from Richard Dawkins who explains that he realises "we" have cocked up and apologises for the lack of communication and his "outrage" response to the disquiet.
Myers is doing his best to support his friend and colleague but this has seen his own readers turn the blowtorch onto him.
In an effort to find out more about the events that ignited the situation I went searching. This blog article by Peter Harrison, one of the RDF forum volunteer administrators, lays out the events as he experienced them. If there is a gram of truth to his account of the events then it's easier to understand the level of vitriol that has resulted for Dawkins, Timonen and now, Myers...
In response to the unanimous criticisms, Josh started playing with the settings in the forum. First he deactivated private messaging. This caused a major problem, as members were starting to share personal details so that they can keep in touch with good friends if the forum really did end up closing. Members also filled their signatures with details and where to find members after the forum had closed. Josh went on to lock viewable access to the forum. For a while, nobody could do anything. With the forum all to themselves, Josh and Andrew deleted any posts that criticised the decision. Next, they removed signatures so that other forums and meeting places could not be advertised. When all of this was done, Josh and Andrew reopened the forum in a read-only state. Nobody could post anymore, and the complaints thread had been completely deleted.
We all know how the atheist and sceptical communities just love censorship in all its forms, don't we? So this was presumably the end of the matter and everyone got on with their real lives, away from the internet... didn't they?
Harrison continues...
To make things worse, Josh and Andrew started deleting members. The moderator who explained that the staff were innocent and treated so disrespectfully, Mazille, had his entire account deleted. This isn’t like a ban where you can no longer access the forum. When an account is deleted, all the user’s posts are deleted too. Mazille had thousands of posts that he was hoping to archive over the next 30 days. All gone, forever. They aren’t in a Recycle Bin of sorts. Next was CJ, a member who had been posting on the front page to explain what Josh was up to and that he was hiding the criticisms and the evidence that the moderating team were lied to and censored. Tens of thousands of posts lost forever. Josh and Andrew permanently deleted several users before starting to remove moderating permissions from the loyal staff.
Harrison's article has over 240 comments. I haven't read them all but they don't look good for Dawkins.
In a second article, Harrison explains why he feels Dawkins is being kept in the dark about the debacle.
Richard Dawkins is currently in Australia on a promotional tour and to speak at the Atheist Convention. It will be interesting see what reception he gets if things don't settle down soon back home.
But seriously, would Catholics ever subject their Pope to this sort of public scrutiny, acrimony or vitriol? Tell me again how evolution is a religion with Richard Dawkins as its Pope!
I think it's interesting that, from the outside, it surely appears that the sceptical community has its heroes, or Popes.
People like James Randi and Richard Dawkins do enjoy massive support and are put on a pedestal as they push the sceptical message far more publicly than most of us could do individually. But they aren't considered infallible. They are not our spiritual leaders. We don't all fall at their feet regardless of what they do or say. When they screw up they cop flack just as if they'd said the Earth was flat. Randi found out how tough his "followers" are when he publicly questioned global warming and Dawkins is finding out what happens when you dismiss a large part of your "fan base" as trivial.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Federal Science Curriculum - is it Science?
The following paragraph is from the new Australian Draft Federal Curriculum for Science (PDF).
Curriculum content that relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and contexts is represented implicitly in the content descriptions, and explicitly in the content elaborations. Specific knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is incorporated where it relates to science and relevant phenomena, particularly knowledge and understanding of nature and of sustainable practices. For example, systematic observations by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures over many generations of the sequence of various natural events contribute to our scientific understanding of seasons in Australia. Such examples of important knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are incorporated in the content elaborations as they relate and contribute to specific Science understanding content. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural perspectives on science and on related phenomena are incorporated within the content elaborations for the Science as a human endeavour strand. The elaborations in this strand emphasise both contemporary and historical examples of content that relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and contexts.
Does anyone, anywhere, have the faintest idea what that means?
It sounds like a very long-winded way of saying "we're going to pretend that the way different cultures observe the world around them is just as much 'science' as the things 'western scientists' call science." But maybe I'm misinterpreting the intent.
The Australian is convinced that this is the thin end of the wedge of turning science back to the dark ages...
SCHOOL students will learn about Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.
Now, The Australian might have a political bias but without specific examples of how the observations and practices of different cultures will be included in science education, it's difficult to comment on whether the convoluted paragraph from the draft represents a valuable addition to the curriculum or if it is just a case of political correctness and undue "balance" infringing on science education.
UPDATE:
The following paragraph is also troublesome...
Science and culture interact to influence personal and community choices (eg in making decisions about health and medicine)
Does this mean our Year-9 kids will lean about the "benefits" of homeopathy or will they be taught how cultural influences can result in people making bad decisions because they ignore evidence in favour of faith and tradition?
MORE:
The SkepicLawyer on the Federal Science Curriculum
The Age has links to Draft Curriculum Papers
Grog's Gamut takes a different view
Curriculum content that relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and contexts is represented implicitly in the content descriptions, and explicitly in the content elaborations. Specific knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is incorporated where it relates to science and relevant phenomena, particularly knowledge and understanding of nature and of sustainable practices. For example, systematic observations by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures over many generations of the sequence of various natural events contribute to our scientific understanding of seasons in Australia. Such examples of important knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are incorporated in the content elaborations as they relate and contribute to specific Science understanding content. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural perspectives on science and on related phenomena are incorporated within the content elaborations for the Science as a human endeavour strand. The elaborations in this strand emphasise both contemporary and historical examples of content that relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and contexts.
Does anyone, anywhere, have the faintest idea what that means?
It sounds like a very long-winded way of saying "we're going to pretend that the way different cultures observe the world around them is just as much 'science' as the things 'western scientists' call science." But maybe I'm misinterpreting the intent.
The Australian is convinced that this is the thin end of the wedge of turning science back to the dark ages...
SCHOOL students will learn about Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.
Now, The Australian might have a political bias but without specific examples of how the observations and practices of different cultures will be included in science education, it's difficult to comment on whether the convoluted paragraph from the draft represents a valuable addition to the curriculum or if it is just a case of political correctness and undue "balance" infringing on science education.
UPDATE:
The following paragraph is also troublesome...
Science and culture interact to influence personal and community choices (eg in making decisions about health and medicine)
Does this mean our Year-9 kids will lean about the "benefits" of homeopathy or will they be taught how cultural influences can result in people making bad decisions because they ignore evidence in favour of faith and tradition?
MORE:
The SkepicLawyer on the Federal Science Curriculum
The Age has links to Draft Curriculum Papers
Grog's Gamut takes a different view
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
