By “other people” here I mean an average neurotypical adult who only studied science at school up to the level at which it ceased to be compulsory, and whose grades in the sciences were roughly average. I’m looking for concepts and principles in science that they may not necessarily be aware of initially, but that can be explained to them in a single, relatively short forum post without recourse to external links or YouTube videos. Once it has been explained to them, they should be able to demonstrate that they have understood it in any further points that they make on the subject.
In other words, what I’m looking for here are the most elementary basics that everyone should be able to understand if they are to discuss science and faith in a meaningful and honest fashion. It is the point below which arguments cease to be good faith misunderstanding or lack of ability and degenerate into wilful ignorance.
Some examples off the top of my head:
The fact that science involves measuring things. That measurement is the polar opposite of guessing, and that accuracy and honesty in how you approach it is non-negotiable. I would expect them to get the point that accurate and honest measurement has rules, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to be able to understand what the rules are without further explanation.
The fact that science involves maths. Once again, I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to be able to do the maths, but I would expect them to know that in principle there is maths involved.
The fact that people who understand science properly get their understanding from hands-on experience.
The fact that they need to provide evidence to back up their claims.
The fact that they need to show their working.
The fact that some types of rocks are harder than others, so what happened to unconsolidated ash at Mount St Helens is not a reliable guide to what could have happened to solid igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock on a much larger scale in the Grand Canyon.
The fact that there is a difference between soft tissue itself and soft tissue decay products.
The fact that there is a difference between “doesn’t always work” and “never works.”
The fact that DNA is not “just carbon.”
The fact that assumptions are not a get-out-of-jail-free clause, but that you have to explain exactly what is being assumed and a plausible mechanism by which the assumption could be incorrect while still giving the same results.
What else do you think that everyone should be able to understand at this level when it is explained to them?
The fact that very fragile or easily disarticulated specimens could not have been transported significantly after deposition.
The fact that fine mud takes a long time to settle.
The fact that some level of uniformitarianism (the “things didn’t magically change without leaving any evidence” level) is required to say anything at all about the past.
The fact that lagerstatten are rare.
The fact that error bars matter (hopefully molecular clock studies figure this out soon).
The fact that calibration data needs to be from a similar type of source to what it is being used on (animals with one year lifespans should not be used to calibrate molecular clocks for animals with 60 year lifespans and different reproductive strategies, etc.).
YEC harp on their distinction between operational and historical science, as a deflection from measurement which is at the foundation of any and all science. Measurement is empirical and distinguishes science from the world of philosophical logic and ideas.
Unfortunately, regular stream public school science education is largely limited to qualitative concepts. I recall as a high school student being at war with balance scales that you had to bash to get unstuck.
That “worldview” is not a free-pass to then conclude that well-evidenced claims about the physical world are suddenly as equally questionable as less-evidenced or non-evidenced claims.
But back on your whole approach of treating education like a cleanly linear progression … If my teaching career so far has taught me anything, it’s that understanding is quite often not a cleanly linear, entirely rational and conscious “progression” - at least not for typical students most of the time. There’s a reason that math curricula begin each year with so much review of past material (sometimes much to the impatience of students quicker in math). Learning (typically) isn’t so much like flipping a light switch on as it is beginning to forge a new neural path (habit of thought or approach) in the brain - a path that will have to become repeatedly trodden and well-interconnected with other paths if there is to be any hope for it to not just get over-grown again because of non-use. I’ve seen students continue to exhibit a blank face about solving a simple equation even after they’ve been given good, and repeated instruction about what to do. Their minds simply do not easily navigate those pathways, or find them useful or appealing. So the moment they are free from the pedagogically tortuous attention they were obliged to give it, it goes back into immediate disuse while they focus on other mental activities they find much more rewarding.
So as much as you and I may wish we could just “turn on the light” for somebody regarding any of these “simple” things you wish they would have on board, most people are still going to regress to the comfort of tuning in to whichever talking heads help them feel most comfortable about the world. And in many cases, they see higher ideologies and religious convictions in play that they will find to be more important for their mental health than being fluent in all the empirical scientific methodologies. So regarding those (scientific facts about the world), they just find a talking head they trust at the ideological / religious level, and are content to be told by that source what to think about any of this stuff.
Sure - chastise them for abdicating responsibility for being scientifically educated (I’m with you in this) - but keep in mind that we all do this in … probably most areas of our lives. I’m not an accountant, and I depend on accountants or treasurers to appraise me honestly about finances. I’m not a farmer or chef and don’t know how everything I consume is made - but I’m happy to trust them enough to consume food nonetheless that I did not raise nor prepare myself. Those are all things that I could take the time and effort to learn … but I won’t. Because we’re fortunate enough to live in an age of specialization where I don’t have to. It does mean that I’m more at the mercy of people I depend on. If I decided tomorrow that I need to henceforth do everything for myself, my life would become a complete mess, and I would probably not be long for this world. Our social reality just does not work like that. We have a finite amount of energy and attention to give.
That’s a long, rambling way of saying you just gave a great “I have a dream” speech. And every professional from every other type of specialty could probably give a similar one regarding what they wish the public would “just know” about their own area of expertise.
YEC is basically a flat-out denial of the relevance of measurement to the historical sciences altogether. Which is basically lying because people who study the historical sciences do so by measuring things.
Which is frustrating.
I was sixteen when my physics teacher explained the role of measurement to science. He said to us, “So you’ve all chosen to study physics, what is this subject that you’ve chosen to study all about?” When we all gave him blank looks, he gave us his answer: “Physics is the art of measurement.”
It was like a lightbulb had just been switched on. That simple sentence may be an oversimplification, but it explained the one thing that had been sorely lacking in my entire science education up until that point. Science works first and foremost by measuring things.
It’s what tied everything that I’d learned about science together into one coherent whole. Take out the understanding of the centrality of measurement and you’re just left with a seemingly incoherent set of facts, equations, and cabalistic symbols.
Why oh why oh why isn’t this simple fact drummed into the heads of every eleven year old?
He retired at the end of our course. We all got together after our last exam and presented him with a gift of an engraved metal ruler that said, “To Sir, thanks for the art of measurement. From your last A level class.”
Everyone is different. People have different capabilities and responsibilities. How much science we expect them to understand depends on these things – particularly on the responsibilities they have.
So with average capabilities and without any responsibilities involving science, should we expect anything? Yes. Otherwise we would unavoidably judge them to be lacking in education. It would mean they have capabilities which are not trained or being used. It would mean there are a number of circumstance where they cannot even be expected to take care of themselves all that well in the modern world. In other words, even if they are not handicapped with regards to intelligence they would be handicapped with regards to education. But while there is little we can do about other handicaps, this is one that can be remedied. Should we not take some responsibility to remedy handicaps when we can?
This is incorrect.
Physics is the science of looking at the world in mathematical terms. To be sure that necessarily begins with measurement. But one can be an expert in measurement without any understanding of physics. And one can be a physicist without any skills in measurement. So equating physics with measurement is just wrong.
It is like saying that cooking is the art of turning on the stove. Or like saying medicine is the art of looking at patients.
I like this question however, its offering the typical unreasonable dilemma for Christians. You falsy accuse anyone who dissagrees with secular science as being non scientific or stupid or both.
I can return fire there and say your theology is utterly crap and not even remotely biblical…so there’s that!
Therefore, we are left with nothing more than a tug o war between strongmen. Each has great strength and each is fully trained for the task at hand. Unfortunately, you seem to think, like the organisers and viewers of the tug o war, that someone must win and someone must lose.
Trouble is, whats really going on here is that we are focusing on the strongmen in the tug o war. What about the very ground they stand on…perhaps the traction each team has might be actually more important than we care to admit?
Both teams can focus on improving the traction in the ground beneath despite coming from opposite sides of that white line on the ground one dares not willingly be pulled cross.
tell me Ron, how fast can a T Rex actually run according to recorded measurements?
How far and how well can a T Rex see at nighttime from recorded measurements?
Do you know how long a T Rex takes to digest its food from recorded measurements?
What about its claws? How long from recorded measurements do they take to grow?
If a T Rex has its skin penetrated by a sharp object, how long from recorded measurements does it take a 10cm long cut to heal?
honestly…you are making s$#t up that simply isn’t even relevant to the issues given what i have just thrown at you above. Both of us can throw nonsense at each other!
Christian philosophy derives its views from a single source…Biblical history. Its absurd to think that you would challenge a Muslim to throw out the Quran simply because you think its scientifically wrong…a true Muslim will ignore the science and follow the Quran anyway. Thats the whole point of faith!
having said that, I’m of the belief that Christian faith isn’t illogical. We can show quite comprehensively a very logical, historical, and relevant narrative that explains the world around us physically and spiritually. Its historical value is paramount in proving its reliability and consistency so that it can be viewed as a logical world view. Contrary to claims here, there is a large amount of science that consistency proves and is harmonious with the historical biblical narrative. You not agreeing with that statement is of no more value than…you don’t agree with it!
Speaking as having had a career in instrumentation for process engineering, this surprises me. A grasp of Ideal gas behavior, real gas corrections, fluid dynamics and Bernoulli’s principle, and an reasonable understanding of electricity and magnetism, are necessary to design and specify pressure, flow, or analytic instruments, for starters. It is not like just ordering from a catalog, and with a single measurement point costing in the tens of thousands you have to be competent to justify your decisions around the table. Undergrad year 1 or 2 level for sure, but it is called applied science.
No, I correctly state as a fact that anyone who doesn’t agree with measurement is making things up and inventing their own alternative reality. They are not just being nonscientific or stupid, they are being dishonest. Deuteronomy 25:13-16 again.
“Secular science” has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The rules of measurement are exactly the same for Christians and secularists alike.
The questions you have posed are subject to a larger space of debate and uncertainty because T Rex’s have been extinct for millions of years and therefore carcasses with macroscopic tissue are not available. Estimates must be based on reasonable inferences from analogous measurements of biomechanics and fossil evidence of stride and lifestyle. Do you have a better idea?
Secular is a curious adjective before science, actually. Do you refer to secular weather forecasts? Design of a bridge as secular engineering? MD’s as secular doctors?
What would non secular science be?
Precision calibration and measurement? Experimental and observational controls? Peer review? Mathematical analysis? Consistency with prior work? What would you get rid of to purge out the secular?
Your list is basic but optimistic. Even in a country with relatively well educated people, the knowledge seems to be holey, with many misunderstandings.
Maybe I am too pessimistic but I do not expect that an average person on the street knows what science is, how science operates and what scientists do. I have listened the answers of new biology students to these questions during many years. They should be among the best of those that have finished high schools (in our country, less than 10% of the students that apply to biology studies have been selected to the studies). Despite their fresh knowledge from the high schools, the answers have been diverse and many have not understood what is crucial and what is not.
An average person on the street knows less.
A crucial thing in such circumstances is the choice of words. My limited work experience is that academic researchers typically use language that is partly difficult to understand. Their academic training and everyday jargon in research work makes them assume that the language they use is mostly understandable for any person on the street and that their basic knowledge about their field and science is fairly common knowledge. This becomes evident when they write short summaries of their findings as a press release. More often than not, the personnel in the communications services have to rewrite the press release so that it would be easily understood by an average educated person.
Perhaps we need to understand what science applies to? where science works? And more important where it doesn’t! Science is no more the be all and end all than Scripture is and to emphasise one over the other always is clearly a false dichotomy…
The same must apply to theology. There are those here who claim Biblical authority over observed reality. Scripture does not dictate reality any more than science does.
Forgive me, but this OP is subversive,(would appear to be) being aimed at a specific viewpoint.(and person)
I understand, but I’m not asking about what they should know already. I’m asking about what they should be able to understand if it’s explained to them.
Well if they adjust their responses to you in ways that are consistent with what you just told them, or if they provide a coherent rebuttal to what you’ve just told them, then that’s an indication that they did indeed understand you.