permaculture

[Kelly Simmons <kelly@bouldersustainability.org>]

I'm weighing in late here, but my sense is that Toby uses these words  
out of enormous frustration.  As a fellow science educator, I share  
his frustration.

Science education in the US more or less stinks and many, many folks  
head off into life without a clear understanding that there are TWO  
uses and meanings of the word "theory" in our language .

The scientific use of the word "theory" means the very best  
explanation that fits all the observable and reproducible facts.   
Gravity is a theory.  It is the very best explanation that explains  
the observable facts.  Scientists check and recheck each other's work  
and check the theory against the facts to make sure they agree it's  
the best explanation.  Theories do change, because scientists often  
come up with new observations from new instrumentation and those new  
observations may not fit the theory.  So then there's a restructuring  
that rarely, but sometimes, has huge impacts on our understanding of  
the world.

But once a theory has been checked and rechecked over and over and no  
new observable facts are coming, scientists and the general public  
accept the "theory" as the real world truth of the matter.  Scientists  
don't use the word fact in this case because fact is reserved for  
observable data.  So evolution is a theory in science, and over time  
and testing becomes real world truth (for most of us).  Scientific  
theories are only "open to interpretation" based on the observable  
facts and data.  Not our opinions of how things could be, or might be.

In contrast to this usage, in general conversation we use the word  
"theory" to mean an idea, often unproven.  It's often tied to the  
notion of opinion and can be considered open to question.  As in "I  
have a theory about why Toby was using insults in his post."  or  
"That's your theory but I disagree"

It's not the same.

And as citizen scientists (permaculture practitioners) and as  
permaculture teachers, I would argue that it is VERY IMPORTANT that we  
understand and be VERY CLEAR about the difference.  Toby brought up  
creationism, because the creationists use this very misunderstanding  
about the word "theory" among the general public to advance their  
religious agenda in school science courses and textbooks by saying  
that "evolution is just a theory".  Yes, evolution is a theory and it  
is the best explanation of the observable facts.  Creationism does not  
explain observable facts and is a religious belief.  Big difference.

That doesn't make science perfect or free of politics.  But we need to  
be clear about our terms at the very least.

We are already assisting in the re-education of adults who learn earth  
education, soils, climate, botany and many other science topics that  
were probably poorly taught in school if at all.  Our clarity is  
important.

And we need to be clear that there are many, many charlatans out in  
the world who use the public's general lack of scientific knowledge  
and understanding to sell worthless products to the unsuspecting.  In  
my opinion, their sales pitches often come in the guise of science AND  
spirituality wrapped up together.  Many folks don't really get the  
science, but it sounds real and official and the spirituality piece  
touches their hearts and longings and they buy.  I have no problem  
with anyone's beliefs about energy, plant devas, spirits and the  
like.  Science obviously does a poor job of  understanding or dealing  
with these topics except for perhaps quantum physics.

And I'm not intending to cast aspersions on ORMES.  I know nothing of  
it.  Just that those of us who are scientists and science educators  
get very very frustrated at the outrageous ignorant crap that passes  
for science in the effort to sell products, over and over and over.    
It sounds to me from Toby's description of their website that it is  
full of pseudoscience intended to help sell their product.

Hope this helps tame the flames.

Best wishes,

Kelly Simmons



On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:07 PM, wenshidi@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> Toby,
>
> If you disagree fine, but there is no need to insult your fellow  
> listers with words like 'nonsense', 'loony-bird', 'idiocy' and  
> 'numbskull.'
> Using these creationist type tactics to force your opinions down  
> other peoples throats, is not the way to get you ideas across.  I  
> hope that you do not try to spread your ideas about permaculture in  
> the same way or you will be doing us all a dis-service.
>
> Chris
>
> --- On Tue, 3/1/11, Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
> > Subject: Re: [permaculture] Ormus- ORMES
> > To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 12:33 PM
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:41 PM, wenshidi@yahoo.co.uk
> > wrote:
> > > Toby,
> > > I do not mean to argue with you, especially when I
> > consider you to be one of the most valuable contributors to
> > this list, but I must point out that plate tectonics, just
> > like Darwin's evolution, the Big Bang etc are all just
> > theories.
> >
> > I used the phrase "plate tectonics" as shorthand for the
> > movement of continental plates and the consequent uplift,
> > which are observed facts, not a theory. The relevant
> > observed fact here is that large areas of the continents are
> > rising and have been for tens or hundreds of millions of
> > years, with no sign of slowing down. There is no evidence to
> > dispute it. None. There is not one shred of evidence to
> > suggest that the continents will disappear "in a few million
> > years." The people who wrote that remain inexcusable
> > ignoramuses who damage what might be useful work  by
> > bolstering their words with nonsensical pseudoscience.
> >
> > I don't think you understand what "theory" means to a
> > scientist or philosopher of science. You are using it in the
> > same way that the creationists do (I understand that you are
> > not a creationist), as in "evolution is just a theory," as
> > if there is some doubt about it. Theory does not mean in
> > doubt or tentative. To a scientist, a theory is a profoundly
> > powerful explanation that is consistent with, and accounts
> > for, observed facts. It it a very different use from the lay
> > person's, "well, here's my theory." Einstein's theory of
> > relativity, Newton's theory of gravity, Darwin's theory of
> > evolution by natural selection etc, are "just theories" but
> > they explain observed facts in such a coherent manner that
> > the likelihood of their being discarded is vanishingly
> > small. There is no more powerful word in science for an
> > explanation than "theory." We could call the above theories,
> > and plate tectonics, "facts," and I do hear scientists speak
> > of the fact of evolution because we have seen it
> > and measured it. But formally, they are explanations that
> > make facts coherent, and not facts themselves, so we don't
> > call them facts. Of course, some theories cover facts that
> > seem contradictory or don't explain every phenomenon, but
> > the overthrowing of a theory as established, and as
> > consistent with observation, as plate tectonics just isn't
> > going to happen. Geology makes no sense without it, just as
> > all of biology and medicine are made coherent only by
> > evolution. Those theories may get tweaked, but I am willing
> > to bet a large sum that they will never be discarded. (I am
> > a student of the philosophy of science, so I appreciate the
> > change to rant about this confusion a bit!.  It is a
> > confusion used as a smokescreen by numbskulls to ignore
> > facts that conflict with their religion's stories.)
> > > "Textbooks frequently extol plate tectonics theory
> > without questioning what might be wrong with the theory or
> > without discussing a competitive theory. How can students be
> > taught to challenge popular ideas when they are only
> > presented a one-sided view?"
> >
> >
> > Nonsense and untrue. We should teach that one plus one
> > might make three, just so we give other views? Gimme a
> > break. Science is not a democracy where every loony-bird
> > gets heard;  "God did it" is not science. Besides, all
> > the textbooks I've seen describe the steps we went through
> > to arrive at plate tectonics, and the flaws, just as every
> > evolution explanation I've seen mentions what it fails to
> > account for. The author of that quote is simply lying. Most
> > textbooks have been forced to include creationism and other
> > idiocy because that particular lobby is so powerful. It is
> > the facts that are in danger, not the religious myths.
> >
> > Toby
> > http://patternliteracy.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > permaculture mailing list
> > permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration or
> > find out more about this list here:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> > permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> > List contacts: permacultureforum@gmail.com
> > and paul@richsoil.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration or find out  
> more about this list here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contacts: permacultureforum@gmail.com and paul@richsoil.com