# Kansas Redefines Science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 8, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132 "2005-11-08T23:25:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/81 "2005-11-09T08:39:42Z")
I thought Nehemiah Scudder was supposed to be from Missouri? List of stupidities from our states? Well, please make sure that the ones you list for California are actually California’s governmental stupidities and not the feds’. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/82 "2005-11-09T10:46:51Z")
Considering that the jury is quite literally still out on whether a school district will be required to teach Intelligent Design in my state, I’m not going to say anything against Kansas. (Both sides rested last week, and I haven’t heard anything about a verdict yet.) I will remind **Polycarp** , however, that a couple of years ago he was making predictions about my love life which I didn’t believe at the time. This isn’t a case of the proverbial “white van on the corner”; it’s the only prediction he’s made about my love life. I hope that the actions of the local school board which introduced ID in my state and the actions of the Kansas state school board will have the effect **Una Persson** described and get ordinary people to realize just how much of a threat these people are. I read recently in my local newspaper that 67% of the people in the US believe in evolution. The denomination **Polycarp** , **Baker** , and I share has no problem with evolution. Then again, it’s the same denomination Darwin belonged to. There is a limit to how far people are willing to be put. Given what I recall from when the Kansas state school board has attempted similar things, I think this may be past that limit. I’ve a feeling this, too, shall pass. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/83 "2005-11-09T11:21:29Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > Yes, perhaps we could redefine religion to remove any references to god, Oh, that’s been done in this very forum, not too many weeks ago. The usual assertion came up about how many people have been killed in the name of religion, and in order to deflect the counter-argument about Stalinism, Maoism, Pol-Pot-ism and Nazism, someone whose name I forget brazenly described all these as “religious” regimes too. And then helped himself to a generous spoonful of sugar for his porridge, I’ll be bound. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/84 "2005-11-09T12:04:38Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > I personally, even among the most hard-core fundamentalist Christians I work with, do not know a single, solitary person who supported this. Even the guy I work with who argues (seriously) that “oranges are proof that God exists”… Godless heathen bastard. _Bananas_ are proof that God exists. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/85 "2005-11-09T12:40:06Z")
I would say there is hope for Kansas…When the children grow up and think for themselves(If given the opportunity) they will get away from the brain washing and learn the truth about science by themselves as many other people do. They will wonder why the adults that made this a law were afraid that science may be true, and if their faith is strong enough it won’t interfere with their personal beliefs.(unless there is a lot of doubt to begin with). Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/86 "2005-11-09T12:48:08Z")
There is a light at the end of the tunnel in my state. Eight members of the school board who put Intelligent Design on the curriculum were defeated in yesterday’s election. The ninth and last member of the board wasn’t up for re-election. I figure we’ll hear the same from Kansas in a few years. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/87 "2005-11-09T12:48:53Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, it’s true that painting everyone with the same brush is problematic. That undersells the problem just a wee bit. > [@](#): > > But do you have any evidence that it is indeed a “tiny minority” of Kansas’s population that approves of these ridiculous science standards. I already presented “evidence” by my experience with a wide range of people of all walks of life who actually live in this State. But this evidence is not proof; to say otherwise would be false. > [@](#): > > After all, the Kansas State Board of Education is an elected body, with ten members each representing one district in the state. The size of the districts, as shown on the map on [this page](http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdmem.html), suggest (given the location of Kansas’s large population centers) that the districting has been carried out in an way that attempts to balance population within each district. > > I’m not sure how successful it has been, but it seems to me that any assertion that only a “tiny minority” of Kansans support this measure needs to be supported with some evidence. Do you have any? > > And if we find out that a majority of Kansans actually support the new science standards, what then does that say about the place? Yes, I already supported it with “evidence”. But that evidence is not proof. And if a majority of Kansans can be found to support the new science standards (I assume it’s not clear, otherwise you would have posted a cite yourself to show me up), that is completely and totally irrelevant to my point that demonizing all people from a State based on the decisions of a subset is wrong. Let’s extend that and include the majority - you live under Bush, right? Is it fair to say “fuck you, you’re an ignorant piece of shit” because Bush was elected by an electoral majority? One can try to spin this any way they want, but the statements demonizing an entire State based on this are indefensible. Damn the Board, damn the scientific obstructionists, damn ID - but don’t damn me and the others who live here who are not part of the problem, and who are working towards a solution. ---
**Author:** ![Lilacs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Lilacs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilacs)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/88 "2005-11-09T13:11:32Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > I think they perfer “Jesusland” As a Kansan who’s traveled through the Fine state of Missouri, I happen to know that Jesusland is on I-70 between Kansas City and Columbia. Truly, a frightening sight. As for the rest: I’m ashamed to be a Kansan at the moment but I don’t see our local district changing their curriculum based on this decision. Still… :smack: Freakin Idiots. Fred Phelps and now this… ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/89 "2005-11-09T13:20:40Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Godless heathen bastard. _Bananas_ are proof that God exists. :eek: _Heretic_ To me, all ye who call yourselves Orangines! ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/90 "2005-11-09T13:23:02Z")
I know that it’s fun to ridicule the idea of a bunch of bumpkins redefining science, but you may want to take a look at their document. It looks to me like their standards had previously included a somewhat wordy definition, which has simply been revised. It doesn’t appear that they have attempted to distort what science means. YMMV.[Here it is. Warning: PDF](http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/scstdworkingdoc892005.pdf) Look for the heading “Nature of Science.” > [@](#): > > Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, > experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does > so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, > and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and > explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, > inferences, and tested hypotheses. > Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data > and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation. Scientific explanation must meet criteria that govern > the repeatability of observations and experiments. The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific explanations about the world > are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants. > Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, > subject to change as new evidence becomes available. The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of > confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested. In areas where data or > understanding is incomplete, new data may lead to changes in current theories or resolve current conflicts. In situations where > information is still fragmentary, it is normal for scientific ideas to be incomplete, but this is also where the opportunity for making > advances may be greatest. Science has flourished in different regions during different time periods, and in history, diverse cultures > have contributed scientific knowledge and technological inventions. Changes in scientific knowledge usually occur as gradual > modifications, but the scientific enterprise also experiences periods of rapid advancement. The daily work of science and technology > results in incremental advances in understanding the world. It appears to me to be a wordy but reasonably accurate description of the nature of scientific inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/91 "2005-11-09T13:38:21Z")
**Crotalus** , I think that the concerns about the revised definition are at least partly justified. Here is the corresponding excerpt from the previous (2001) version of the [standards](http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.html): > [@](#): > > Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation. Scientific explanation must meet criteria that govern the repeatability of observations and experiments. The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants. Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available. The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested. In areas where data or understanding are incomplete, new data may lead to changes in current theories or resolve current conflicts. In situations where information is still fragmentary, it is normal for scientific ideas to be incomplete, but this is also where the opportunity for making advances may be greatest. Science has flourished in different regions during different time periods, and in history, diverse cultures have contributed scientific knowledge and technological inventions. Changes in scientific knowledge usually occur as gradual modifications, but the scientific enterprise also experiences periods of rapid advancement. The daily work of science and technology results in incremental advances in our understanding of the world about us. It seems pretty clear that in the first sentence, the shift in phrasing from “natural explanations” to “more adequate explanations” is deliberate, for the purpose of permitting **super** natural explanations also to be considered under the heading of science. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/92 "2005-11-09T13:44:38Z")
And in fact, on more closely reading the two excerpts, the **only** difference between them seems to be that very change in the first few sentences, to wit: > [@](#): > > “Nature of Science” in the 2001 standards: > > Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. > [@](#): > > “Nature of Science” in the revised 2005 standards: > > Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. (And in fact, these revisions make the definition **more** wordy than it was previously.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/93 "2005-11-09T13:51:35Z")
If anyone remembers that definition for even a minute after they have to write it on a test, I’ll be amazed. 🙂 Seriously, though, the new definition does say that science seeks explanation of natural phenomena. I’m much more concerned about that teaching of ID in school than about this tweaking of the definition of science. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/94 "2005-11-09T13:52:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Heretic > > To me, all ye who call yourselves Orangines! [sings] _Don’t cry for me, Orangina…_ [/sings] ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/95 "2005-11-09T13:56:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > the new definition does say that science seeks explanation of natural phenomena. So what? The point is that it no longer restricts science to seeking **natural** explanations of them, which I think is indeed pretty important. A fundamental part of the methodology of science is that it doesn’t admit supernatural explanations, no matter how “adequate” they may appear. Science has no business invoking supernatural causes for observed phenomena, because supernatural causes can’t be scientifically studied, tested, or predicted. If you’re worried about ID teaching then you ought to be worried about this too, because it appears to be part and parcel of the same campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/96 "2005-11-09T14:04:38Z")
And by the way, my take on that definition change is corroborated by the [opinion](http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/810/1) of the chair of the National Academy of Science’s science standards writing committee, which has been opposing the Kansas Board of Education on these proposed revisions: > [@](#): > > Although the standards do not mention ID–the idea that some features of living systems are best explained by an intelligent cause–the draft “is littered with language that is routinely used by intelligent design advocates,” says Steven Case, committee chair and a biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. > > The standards also would revise the definition of science from an activity seeking “natural explanations” for observed phenomena to a method of using “observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” The new definition opens the door to supernatural explanations, says Case. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/97 "2005-11-09T14:08:59Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > So what? The point is that it no longer restricts science to seeking **natural** explanations of them, which I think is indeed pretty important. > > A fundamental part of the methodology of science is that it doesn’t admit supernatural explanations, no matter how “adequate” they may appear. Science has no business invoking supernatural causes for observed phenomena, because supernatural causes can’t be scientifically studied, tested, or predicted. I agree. But note that the definition doesn’t use the term “supernatural”. > [@](#): > > If you’re worried about ID teaching then you ought to be worried about this too, because it appears to be part and parcel of the same campaign. I don’t like either one, but I think kids are going to remember more about ID or creationism than they are about this arcane definition. It won’t really matter to anyone not studying science in college, and for anyone who DOES study science in college, they’ll learn the correct definition there. That’s not to excuse either action, but people in this thread are acting like this is going to destroy any leadership position the US has in the sciences. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/98 "2005-11-09T14:18:01Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t like either one, but I think kids are going to remember more about ID or creationism than they are about this arcane definition. I don’t think that’s really the point. AFAICT, the official “science standards” are not meant for Kansas students to study directly. Nobody’s actually expected to memorize this definition of science and write it on a test. Rather, the standards’ purpose is to identify the official educational goals and directions that educators are supposed to pursue. So the redefining of science as a search for vague “more adequate explanations” rather than for strictly “natural explanations” can be used—and is apparently intended to be used—to validate the teaching of supernatural theories like Intelligent Design as genuinely “scientific”. And that scares me. Yes, I can see the influence of this line of reasoning as being pretty bad for American science education in the long run, and I don’t think I’m being alarmist or hysterical. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/99 "2005-11-09T14:23:55Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > Then how about Pitting the people responsible, instead of this shit from the typical mental midgets on the SDMB: > > “Perhaps Kansas is simply destined to be stupid. Fuck 'em.” > > “I’m going to rewrite the definition of stupid to include the entire state of Kansas.” > > “I hate to say it, but maybe yeah. Might have to write these folks off.” > > Note there’s no limitation of scope or direct object in these. But I guess that’s fighting ignorance, huh. > > I expected better of the SDMB. Yeah, it’s a given that some of the fuckheads will make blanket statements to marginalize an entire population, but one would have hoped other smarter dopers would jump in to castigate that. Hey, what’s it called again when you look at the actions of a tiny minority and use that to negatively paint an entire population? It isn’t called “smart”… :rolleyes: > > I hope you and any other smart dopers reading this will take action and work to get this bit of ignorance reversed; this Board deserves better. FWIW, I did already apologize to **Baker** for my comment. And secondly, how ironic that in a post complaining about generalities, you start off with “the typical mental midgets on the SDMB”. No limitation of scope there, either. Gee, maybe people sometimes say things that sound like there’s no limitation of scope, but there really actually is? And it’s expected that a reader of average intelligence can figure that out? And yes, I see one comment explicitly says “the entire state of Kansas”. I think most reasonable people would enterpret that as exaggeration, and that the poster did not literally mean every single person within those state lines. It’s a shame people have to caveat the fuck out of every comment or get accused of PC bullshit like this. Try giving folks the benefit of the doubt. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132/100 "2005-11-09T14:25:04Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And that scares me. Yes, I can see the influence of this line of reasoning as being pretty bad for American science education in the long run, and I don’t think I’m being alarmist or hysterical. Can you outline the scenario where this definition in one state (and a small one at that), for High School science classes is going to significantly affect American science education? Remember, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy unless you have actual proof that the slope exists-- not that it could conceivably exist. Frankly, if this definition is not the one that’s taught in schools, I’m even less worried about it. The school boards are going to be in for a rude awakening when they try to enforce this on actual science teachers across the state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-redefines-science/330132.md?page=6)