Kids are taught the scientific method at least half a dozen times from 1st grade to the end of high school and even...

>by creationists

Here is your problem. Let me give you an analogy.

This is like expecting monkeys to know everything about the bananas they eat just because we are able to sequence the DNA of a banana. It is true that the knowledge of the DNA of a banana is out there, but a monkey will never be able to understand it.

So now that you understand you can use your time wisely instead of making threads about how those dumb monkeys still don't know about the genetic information of bananas.

There are numerous other examples to chose from, such as the efficacy of vaccines, global warming, etc. Anything with any sort of controversy will have some group applying this type of argument to the dominant idea. As these groups are somewhat disparate and sizable, it is safe to say that a not insignificant portion of the population thinks some scientific theory is invalid because "it is just a theory."

Every society will probably have a majority of "ignorant people" who are more interested by other things than science. most people aren't scientists and don't want to be and you can't force them to be curious or interested about stuff, that just doesn't work.

Science has become a branded fashion product mostly defined by media companies through peer-review these days anyway, not by any of the philosophies of science.

That development is far more dangerous to the idea that science should be about truth-seeking than the average Joes ignorance.

>taught the scientific method
>even more if they go to college

No. Majored in physics and never heard the "scientific method " be mentioned once.

Thats probably because the scientific method isn't taught in super great detail. The just hear 'you have to test this a bunch of times to verify results' and hear 'evolution is about natural selection not influenced by any outside force' and go well how can you test that

>People use "just a theory" in shows, in personal speech, ect all the time
>N-No people know what theory means.

kek

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science
icr.org/article/exploring-limitations-scientific-method/

There's a difference between speech patterns and what someone actually believes user.

To be fair, before there were some decent arguments against accepting evolution as a scientific theory, because wasn't able to produce any predictable claims like other scientific theories (like general relativity). I believe that objection was first made by Lakatos. But yeah, creationists are retard.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact
Natural selection is the theory that attempts to explain the fact of evolution

>What has the education system done right?
Dumbing down the populace to make control easier.

The same reason adults in fucking state universities need to be retaught the same elementary algebra that's been shoved down their throats since middle school.

Do not underestimate the depth of human ignorance.

>The last time I remember being explicitly taught the scientific method was in grade school

I went to school in a one stoplight town in the Midwest, and we were taught the scientific method like every year from 6th to 12th grade.

Yes, I just re-used the terms of the previous post and of the general discussion.

Evolution is not a fact dipshit, it is a theory (and i mean this purely based on scientific defintion of facts and theories.) But i am totally with you in the concept that it is so well proven you'd have to be dumb to disagree with it.

No, that is not the scientific definition of a theory. Go back to high school. A well informed guess is a hypothesis.

Well, at this point it's just semantic and depends on what you refer too when you use the term. You can refer to the theory that explains the phenomena or to the phenomena itself with the same term. I don't think anyone disagrees on the fact and the theories, just their names at this point.

evolution is an undergrad biology topic thats taught completely out of context for the sake of riling up evangelists.

Not really sure how evolution is any more out of context than other aspects of a high school bio curriculum. Does a high school student really have sufficient appreciation of orgo/biochem to truly understand the mechanisms behind cellular respiration? Can they really, truly understand embryonic development or the immune system without a more rigorous background in genetics and cell biology? Of course not, but there's no practical way to teach biology 'from the ground up' in an efficient way, so the current system where you sort of give a general overview and then teach each subfield in a more specialized manner in undergrad is acceptable.

Maybe they think that science is all guesswork because they're told that medicine and psychology are sciences.

But evolution really is a theory. It just happens that creationists are the only people rejecting this theory.

>Not really sure how evolution is any more out of context than other aspects of a high school bio curriculum

evolution is taught in a way that makes it seem like a fundamental truth whose only purpose is enlightenment about the origins of life. they don't discuss the applications of the model or what assumptions are made.

Well, they didn't teach it like a 'fundamental truth' in my school, we learned about hardy weinberg equilibrium and the 4 main ways allele frequency changes. And again, no part of biology will get an in-depth analysis with rigorous discussion of the limitations and starting principles of the model, evolution isn't unique in that regard.

>And again, no part of biology will get an in-depth analysis with rigorous discussion of the limitations and starting principles of the model

and i don't expect it to. i have just always seen evolution taught from a rhetorical standpoint and not a scientific one. a little more rigor and less feels is all i ask.

Well if your teachers were shit then that sucks but not sure why you're singling out evolution.

the reason its taught in that manner is because of its """controversial""" nature. its the only scientific topic i've seen go so deep down the philosophical rabbit hole. i'm not singling out evolution, the special treatment i've seen it get is absurd and i want it to end.

A hypothesis doesn't have to be well informed. It's just a question you want to figure out.

Science is an ideology just as any other discipline of knowledge is.

>he still thinks there's a scientific method

>concept that it is so well proven you'd have to be dumb to disagree with it.
is a fact

If I drop an object, it will fall to the floor
This is a fact
The theory of gravity attempts to explain this fact

Living things evolve
This is a fact
The theory of natural selection attempts to explain this fact

Darwin never used the word "evolution" in On Origin of Species. He said, "descent with modification"
The "theory of evolution" is something made up by people who did not understand his work

dipshit

It is not a fact. We don't know for sure if what was "proved" is actually true; you have to see it to believe it. Unless we can simulate it, there is no way to prove it's correct.

ITT after bashing society for being muh ignorant, turns out /sci doesn't know either.

>If I drop an object, it will fall to the floor
>This is a fact
Unless of course you're a philosophy student studying Hume.

Put it this way:
>every time someone has released an object from their grip or other restraining device, it falls to the ground.
An experiment was done on the moon which showed two objects fell at the same rate of acceleration regardless of their mass difference.
That's a fact. It's a fact that was predicted (by a theory) before it could be measured to such accuracy.

As for you, I must say it is a fact. We have witnessed evolution in microscopic organisms on a time-scale of days (where a generation lasts hours), and in specific species on a time-scale of decades or centuries (where a generation lasts years). It is an empirical fact that is best accounted for by the theory of natural selection (or sometimes intelligent selection considering domesticated animals).

I didn't even read down to this idiot this one made me shiver, vote Trump, aye?
Now, I find this interesting. When not even the people who deal with the scientific method and approach on a regular basis, even when it's just on this board, got any clue what it entails, who does know then? Hence I believe OP has just given proof of the ignorance he claims to see by provoking these fellows out who know how to bash, but nothing else really. It's a long way to go, it seems.

But that guy is right. Evolution is fact and was accepted as such well before Darwin came on the scene. If you can consistently date rocks from around the world, with certain fossil patterns, to the same eras and observe that certain fossils are never found before certain geological dates, and if the comparative anatomy of various fossils can be reliably corroborated with modern DNA evidence of their putative descendants, then that is science in action. The theory is modern evolutionary synthesis, and the repeatable experiments are DNA studies, fossil dating, and recovery of similar sediments in parts of the world that were only next to each other during a different tectonic arrangement. Which part of these experiments violates the scientific method?

>As for you, I must say it is a fact.

You misunderstand. We all agree with you about how confident the scientific community is about these topics.

Yet in that same scientific community these terms fact, hypothesis, theory and law, which all have incredibly specific definitions. And you are plainly using them incorrectly.

A fact would be, we are seeing these micro-organisms adapt to their environment in real time.

A theory would be, they are adapting in real time because of the evolutionary process which better shapes the species to their particular niche so they can genetically survive longer than similar organisms.

A fact tells us what is happening, and a theory tells us why it is happening. These words are not interchangeable, scientifically speaking.

>incredibly specific definitions
No, their definitions are quite credibly specific.
It is your description of them that lacks credibility.

Facts don't have to occur in real time to be facts. Most of our info about stars and galaxies is not in real time, but rather delayed due to the speed of light. Similarly, while information about fossil layers and geologic deposits is not in real time, we can reliably impute certain facts about the earth's natural history through observation. If you see a dog run behind a bush and then see it run out seconds later, you can say that it is in fact the same dog, and only the most ridiculous skeptic would disagree. Similarly, if you see a certain distinct type of animal, like a trilobite, consistently appearing through various layers of sediment in regions that were once very close, then you can say that it is a fact that they are related. The theory is natural selection, the fact is 'these are the same animals '.

"We've gone from teaching Latin and Greek in highschool, to teaching remedial English in college."

We aren't disagreeing about anything.

Also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

I was wrong, facts and theories are not mutually exclusive.

If you were wrong, yet agreeing with him, you are saying he was wrong as well.
So now that you understand the most basic terms to the method, will you continue making fun of all the people who are still oblivious to it, knowing this time round you actually stand on the right side of the argument, or might you maybe think next time before you go around knocking down open doors? Of all the threads filled with conceited self-endulging pomptuous better-knows on here, this must be one of the most embarrassing ones.

You don't deserve an explanatory answer.

Is that a picture of Larkmead, OP? It's in the title too "Lmspic.png" ... but might just being a coincidence. Spooky.

>the scientific method
>the

We have another one. I guess what you struggle with, is the idea that there is a similar approach for studies in different fields.
Observation/Research -> Hypothesis -> Prediction -> Experimentation -> Conclusion.

/Thread please.

Kids can learn more from reading scientists books ( not scientific papers ) their books, the ones they wrote for the public...
from that point you can develop a passion for science and then use the internet to educate yourself.. or alternatively use outdated, boring, shitty textbooks from school - politically correct ones of course.

Black holes don't steal light...

Popsci here. If the scientific definition of theory includes "repeatedly tested and confirmed" then what do you call it after a single experiment that supports the hypothesis? How about twice? Not trying to be pedantic on purpose I'm just wondering. I could see why people might say "it's just a theory" because there might be little evidence to support it so far. Still, you would think they would want to look into how much evidence there is instead of equating everything named theory.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

That's only been the case for a few decades, especially if you get into fringe cases and different regions and countries. Many people now alive already finished school (or got to the point they weren't paying attention any more) before then. Also language is flexible and uneven and weird-- the average person uses the word "theory" differently, and much more loosely, than a scientist. It's hard and awkward to switch back and forth between definitions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

But I mean, strictly speaking, evolution is not a law of the universe, so there's that.

>then what do you call it after a single experiment that supports the hypothesis? How about twice?
Anything with experimental evidence supporting it is called a theory in science. There are no special terms related to the raw number of experiments supporting a theory. However, a theory supported by more experiments than other competing theories is likely to be widely accepted.

That's kind of a shame. I feel like there should be a word, even if it's boundaries are fuzzy, to explain that difference. Mostly for the average person so that these kinds of misunderstandings are avoided.

>>Kids are taught the scientific method at least half a dozen times from 1st grade to the end of high school and even more if they go to college

no they arent

Most American kids don't have the attention span to sit down and read let alone have an interest in scientific books. They would rather be spending their time playing games, smoking weed, playing sports, and in general not applying themselves. Pair this with the abysmal education and you have a group of people who don't know that the sun is at the center of our solar system let alone know what a scientific theory means.

What they mean when they say "just a theory" is "hypothesis". It's a little like the misuse of the word literally, when figuratively is meant.

I was taught the scientific method explicitly in
>third grade lab
>sixth grade science fair
>seventh grade life science
>ninth grade physics
>tenth grade chemistry
>eleventh grade biology
>some college intro to bio class
I must be just so dense that I can't understand a concept after being taught it in detail seven times over the course of my life.

>read
Have you read the Bible? Because I can just change the definition of "read" to be as impossibly tedious and arbitrary as I want. And if you come up with a different interpretation than mine, than I can just "assume" that you didn't read the Bible carefully enough.

This is an incorrect or at the very least grossly incomplete characterization of scientific theories.

Move to the Midwest like Texas and Arizona. You'll find this to be truer than you would like it to be.