Nov 092006
 

Over at The Panda’s Thumb, blogster RBH (Richard B. Hoppe), had this to say about the results of the Ohio school board election results this past Tuesday. One of the claims RBH makes is:

As readers of the Thumb no doubt already know, honest science won big in the Ohio State Board of Education elections yesterday. Four of the five candidates endorsed by Ohio HOPE won their races. In the fifth race, Ohio HOPE endorsed two of four candidates who unfortunately split 51% of the vote between them, allowing a third candidate to win with 38% of the total vote. Ohio HOPE was organized by scientists in Ohio a few months ago to support teaching honest science in K-12.

My comment in response was:

“Honest science” defined, that is, with the presupposition that nature is a closed system of natural cause and effect”as UNscientific a presuppostion as you’re gonna find! Unless, of course, someone can produce the scientific research studies that confirm the hypothesis that nature is a closed system of natural cause and effect. I’d love to see those studies, and I’d really like to know how the hypothesis might be falsified”scientifically that is. “Honest science” with dis-honest metaphysics!! Too bad Ohio voters weren’t told about that!!

I’m not holding my breath to see all the scientific research studies that will be forthcoming. I’m pretty sure there will be lots of avoiding of the question, though, because they (the “thumbsters) know that there is no scientific answer to the question. Apparently, “honest” science entails the notion that nature is a closed system of natural cause and effect and if we’re going to teach “honest” science to students in Ohio, then that is what they “honestly” have to be taught. During the campaign, was anyone honest enough to explain that to the Ohio voters?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.