Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] was Ormus- now Toby's insulting rant

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Kelly Simmons <kelly@bouldersustainability.org>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] was Ormus- now Toby's insulting rant
  • Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:31:59 -0700

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page