Russell McMahon wrote:

>> "This is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue," he said.
>> "There isn't a scientific issue about the validity of evolution. The
>> only issue is whether schoolchildren will learn real science or 
>> not."
>>          -- Adrian Melott
> 
> I've no idea of the original context.

Neither do I, but I think it is very obvious that everything children learn
in school (especially in public schools) is (among others) a political
matter. Unless it is a private school, not regulated by government at all,
in which case the absence of any regulation is also (among others) a
political matter.


> SO - will children learn real science or not?
> A good question.
> If they are taught that Science is as Popper says and the rest is 
> flavours of religion, and that there is no demerit in this being so, 
> then they will indeed learn real Science.

The other question is what does this matter. Popper is not a scientist, he
is a philosopher. One among many others. He has his view(s) of what makes a
postulate "scientific"; others have other views. IMO, if one wants to talk
to others about science in any sensible way, it is not enough to know
Popper's view; you need to know a few more, most notably the more common
uses of "scientific" in politics and marketing of most "developed" nations,
and then, of course, one's own position. 

Science is only one of so many concepts one may or may not have a firm
position on. Of course it's more important than a few other concepts to
some of us here, given what our interests are. But I'm pretty sure one can
have a happy, fulfilled and in other ways plentiful life without ever
getting to a deep understanding of the implications of what may be called
"science" and what not. Even without ever having thought about this. 

Popper himself says that the problem of limiting "science" is not one of
meaning, but one of demarcation. But the importance of this demarcation is
not quite clear, and Popper himself seems not to be of much help in
establishing it. 


To get back to the subject: I don't think you can "learn science". One
maybe can "learn Science", but that's more about a religion (in that it
postulates a superior truth that is not to be questioned). As there is no
real common meaning of "science", everybody has to create his own, and this
makes it something you can't learn. The moment you want to teach "science",
that is, telling people what is and what is not science, you kind of work
against your own bases. As it has happened throughout history, and I have
no doubt that this isn't the end of it -- most substantial enhancements of
our "scientific universe" were initially thought to be not scientific.

What IMO you can and should have an opportunity to learn (at least to a
certain degree) is autonomous thinking. Which may be what you meant,
basically, just that I think this has not much to do with Popper (other
than that he apparently was quite good at it) or science. But then, this is
not really in the interest of most governments (or stockholders of private
schools), and it's over the top of most people -- half of the people, and
as such probably half of the teachers, are below average in it :) 

So there you get a conflict of interest, and a limitation in capacity, and
it's probably not realistic to expect this to happen in a school in a
planned and thorough form.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist