Helping kids learn scientific reasoning

Helping kids learn scientific reasoning

To help a child learn science and scientific reasoning it’s critical to help him when he’s interested in scientific things. So if he wonders why something happens a certain way, then it's important for the parent to help him figure out why it happens.

Beware though that getting interested only works voluntarily. Doing it involuntarily, say where the parent manipulates his child by tricking him into certain discussions, can be expected to lead to hating it (and distrusting the parent).

Now one thing that helps a person spark interest is for him to connect concrete things in his life with the relevant abstract scientific concepts. These concrete things are his problems, things he wants to know. Things he's interested in.

Here’s some discussions between parent and child that you can use as examples.

[After getting in the car to go to McDonalds on a cold winter day.]

Child: Go!

Parent: But we can’t go yet because I can’t see well through the windshield. If we go now then we’ll probably crash.

Child: Ok.

Parent: Do you want to know why we can’t see well though the windshield?

Child: Ya.

Parent: It’s because there is condensation on it.

Child: What's condensation?

Parent: Condensation is water that went from the air to a hard surface, like the windshield.

Child: There’s water in the air?

Parent: Yes. Do you know why clouds and fog are not see-through? It's because there is a lot of water in the air and that makes light not go through it. So then we can’t see the light that’s coming from the other side.

Child: Oh!

Parent: Do you want to know why the water goes from the air to the windshield?

Child: Ya, why does that happen?

Parent: Ok, so there is water in the air, and when the windshield is colder than the air, then water goes from the air to the windshield. 

Parent: Another example of this is a glass of ice water — the water from the air goes onto the glass.

Child: Oh ya!

Parent: Did you know that the opposite thing happens when we boil water to cook eggs?

Child: What do you mean?

Parent: The water in the pot gets hot, and that makes the water from the pot to go into the air.

Child: Cool!

Parent: I can explain this stuff in more detail so it makes more sense, but it requires knowing what air and water and windows are made of. Do you want to learn that?

Child: Yes!

Parent: Everything is made of atoms. Atoms are like the building blocks of everything in the world, like legos are the building blocks of things we build from legos.

Child: What about trees?

Parent: Yes trees, and grass, and animals, and us, and the sun, the moon, water, tables, paper, TVs, and everything else too.

Child: What about a magic hat?

Parent: Well yes the hat is made out of atoms, but magic is not real.

Child: But it is real.

Parent: How is it real?

Child: When the magic hat goes on somebodies head, the head disappears.

Parent: No it doesn't. The guy is just tricking you, the head is still there, and you aren't seeing it. The head is made of atoms. The hat is made of atoms. Those are real things. There is no magic, like there is no Santa, no tooth-fairy, the boogey man, and no Spongebob.

[While watching Bones, season 2 episode 5, there is a scene where flesh was falling off the bones of a human body in a tub full of hydrochloric acid.]

Child: Why is that happening? 

Parent: Are you asking me why the flesh is coming off the bones?

Child: Ya.

Parent: Well, there is acid in the tub, and that acid makes the flesh dissolve.

Child: What’s an acid and why does it make flesh dissolve?

Parent: An acid is a molecule. A molecule is a collection of atoms that are bound together by forces.

Child: What are forces?

Parent: Forces are what pull things together, or push them apart. So there are forces that hold the atoms together to make molecules.

Child: Ok, but I still don’t know why acid makes flesh fall off bones.

Parent: I haven’t gotten there yet. So one example of a molecule is a protein. Proteins are the machines in our bodies that do things.

Child: Machines in our bodies?

Parent: Yes, but they're not made of metal. Their made of other stuff, other atoms.

Parent: One example of a protein is the one that holds our skin to our bodies. If we didn’t have this protein, then our skin would fall off. And actually there is a gene that causes this problem because the gene doesn’t make the protein the right way, and so if you touch the skin, it falls off.

Child: Wow!

Parent: Now, if the acid gets in contact with a protein, the atoms in the acid react with the atoms in the protein. 

Child: What does react mean?

Parent: It kinda means ‘do something.’ So atoms from the acid react with atoms from the protein, making the protein into a different molecule — so the acid changes the protein into a different molecule. So now the new molecule doesn’t do the job that the original protein did. 

Parent: So if the proteins that hold our skin on our bodies get in contact with acid, then the protein will break apart and our skin will fall off.

Child: Ok.

[While looking at family pictures.]

Child: I look like mama. And I look like you too.

Parent: Yep. Do you know why?

Child: Why?

Parent: Because you got your genes from me and from mama, and genes are what make you look certain ways, like your eye color and hair color.

Child: What are genes?

Parent: Genes are things that are in our bodies that control how we look, and how are bodies work. And people get their genes from their parents.

Child: Oh!

Parent: Guess what else genes do besides control how we look?

Child: What else?

Parent: Genes also control our proteins.

Child: What are proteins again?

Parent: Proteins are molecules, and they are machines that do things in the body. And one of the proteins is the one that holds our skin.

Child: Oh ya, and if you put acid on the protein then your skin will fall off.

Parent: For some acids, yes, but not all acids.

Parent: And if you have a certain bad gene, then the protein that holds you're skin doesn't get made right, and so your skin just falls off if somebody touches it a little bit hard.

Child: I'm glad I don't have that gene.

---

Title: something about basement being colder than upstairs

It's cold.

: put some more clothes on.

why don’t you turn up the heater?

: it’s already on 70 degrees.

feels like 0 degrees.

: it’s probably 60 degrees down here.

: if i turn up the heater to 73 degrees, it’s not going to change downstairs much. mostly just upstairs will get hotter.

that sucks.

: you could put more clothes on. or bring a blanket. or just go upstairs.

i’ll get my blanket.

[goes and comes back]

why is the basement always colder than upstairs?

: it’s because hotter air rises. that also means that colder air goes down, which is because the hotter air is pushing up.

why does that happen?

: ok there’s a bunch of parts to explain why it happens, so bare with me.

ok.

: do you remember that when stuff gets hotter it get’s bigger?

oh ya! … but i forgot why.

: i’m getting there. do you remember that everything is made of atoms?

ya

: and do you remember that atoms are always moving around?

ya. [balloon of kid imagining atoms moving around]

: well, when something is hotter, that’s because the atoms in it are moving around faster. the hotter it is, the faster the atoms are going. [balloon of kid imagining two jars of gas with different temperatures, and the hotter one’s atoms are moving faster]

: and the faster they go, the more they bump into each other and spread apart from each other. and the more they bump and push onto the thing it’s in. [show picture of it. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3b.htm]

ok. but why does the hotter stuff go up?

: well, do you remember that the heavier stuff goes down, and the lighter stuff goes up?

oh ya, like when we stand in sand!

: right. when you stand in the sand, you’re heavier than the sand so you are pushing down and the sand is being pushed up.

: and the same thing happens with colder air and hotter air. the colder air is heavier than the hotter air, so the hotter air is pushing down and the colder air is being pushed up.

but wait, why is the colder air heavier than the hotter air?

: it’s because of what I said before about spreading apart. i said that hotter air means that the atoms in it are moving faster, and that means that they are bumping into each other more and spreading apart more. so there’s less stuff in one spot.

oh i get it.

————

why does my finger get white when i do this? [squeezes finger together]

: because you’re making the blood go somewhere else.

that’s what I thought!

: [smile]

————

why does my hand feel weird while watching a movie?

: you mean it’s tingling?

ya

: how are you watching? i mean, are you laying on your hand?

i’m doing it like this. [shows propping up head with arm]

: well you’re cutting off the nerve communication to your brain. and that weird feeling is because the communication is not working right.

why is that happening?

: well you’d have to learn about what nerves are, what they are for, and how they work.

so what’s a nerve?

: a nerve is a type of cell in the body. it sends signals between the body and the brain.

what’s a cell?

: our bodies are made of cells.

i thought we’re made of atoms.

: yes we are made of atoms. a bunch of atoms together make a molecule. and a bunch of molecules together make a cell. 

ok

: cells live and die, and they divide and make more of themselves.

like us?

: yes except for a cell is the smallest living thing.

oh!

: so back to nerves. a nerve is a cell whose job it is to send signals between the body and the brain.

what’s that for?

: well, like for example, when your skin gets hot, there are sensors in your skin that measure that it’s hot. and then your nerves carry that information to your brain.

oh cool.

: another example is where your brain tells your body part to move away so you’re not touching the hot thing anymore.

: but when you put pressure on those nerves, then it doesn’t work right. that’s why you can’t feel much in that area of your body, and that’s why it’s harder to move it the way you want to. and that’s why it’s tingling.

what’s pressure?

: like, you’re putting your weight on those nerves.

is it bad to do that?

: only if it’s for many hours.

like when i’m sleeping?

: if you don’t move at all? ya it could be bad.

[concerned look]

: but when you sleep you move around some, especially when you’re uncomfortable.

oh ok. [relieved look]

———————————————

For more on parenting.

Understanding Terrorism

A lot of people think terrorism is a new phenomenon since the term terrorism was only recently used a lot in the media. But actually it's much older than that. The term was first used in 1795 during the French Revolution, but that's not a good way to figure out how old the phenomenon is. I mean, just because a word is 200 years old doesn't mean that the idea the word refers to is 200 years old.


Terrorism

Terrorism is the systematic use of violence from one population to another, in order to instill fear, as a means of bringing about political change. I expect that this sort of thing is as old as civilization.

In history, one case that comes to mind is Islam during it's founder's life, 1,400 years ago. Most Muslims don't know the history and assume that Islam spread by voluntary conversion, since that seems the most logical to people in today's open societies. They are descent people who understand the importance of peace, and so they assume that Islam was peaceful too. But actually it spread by the sword. Kingdoms were given a choice, convert to Islam and come under the rule of Mohamed, or die by the swords of Muslims. And for the kings that did not capitulate to Mohamed's demands, what resulted was Islamic invasions of those kingdoms. So Mohamed instituted a systematic approach of using violence in order to make these kingdoms into provinces of his own nation, which constitutes political change. He justified murder, rape, and theft during his military campaigns -- he said it was for the sake of spreading Islam, a command from Allah.[1] The prophet of Islam boasted, “I have been made victorious with terror".[2]

During this period of military expansion, there were tribes in Arabia who were rejecting Islam, and a law was instituted where apostates were to be given a chance to reaffirm their submission to Allah or be killed -- again a command from Allah.[4] That decree is still being enforced today in some countries. This is a means of instilling fear in the population so that they don't reject Islam -- fear of murder is a strong motivator.

So Mohamed was a terrorist. Not the first terrorist, but definitely one of the worst in history -- if we're counting most deaths as the worst.

To be clear, had those kingdoms initiated violence on the Islamic nation, then Mohamed would have been retaliating in self-defense, which would be good. It would be good because it's a means to restore peace, after the aggressor had already forcefully/involuntarily dragged the victim into war against his will. But that's not what happened. Mohamed sent envoys with his letters to these kingdoms unprovoked, [3] which is evil.

So terrorism is at least 1,400 years old, but really the fundamental feature underlying terrorism is much much older than that, and it pervades our societies a lot more than most people realize. The most important feature of terrorism is related to the fact that it is involuntary. This can be explained by pointing out how it contrasts with liberalism.


Liberalism

Liberalism says that individuals should be treated equally under the law. One key issue in liberalism is tolerance -- which is about agreeing to disagree without initiating violence. So, under liberalism, things like murder and rape are considered wrong.

Terrorism says that it's ok to initiate violence, as a means of causing political change. So terrorism is intolerance. It contradicts liberalism.

The fundamental feature of terrorism is that it is involuntary, against an innocent person, with the goal of involuntarily causing the victim to submit to the aggressor's will. To help clarify this issue, let's consider the alternative way, which is to help someone to change his mind voluntarily, by rational discussion.


Rational discussion

In any given disagreement between two or more people, in order for agreement to be reached, they must find an idea that everybody involved agrees with. Otherwise, they are still in disagreement. And when agreement is reached, it means that one or more of the people involved have changed their minds, which implies that it was voluntary. Now this doesn't require that the people agree on everything. But at the minimum, what is required is that they agree to disagree, in the sense that they don't resort to violence. So rational discussion requires that people willingly change their minds, and it requires that they refuse to initiate violence as a means to end the discussion. So rationality -- the willingness to change one's mind, and the refusal to use involuntary means, is a requirement of each person involved. If just one person involved in the disagreement is being irrational, then agreement cannot be reached.


Dissent is ok

Consider a society where dissent is ok. If a disagreement does not end with agreement, then nobody involved retaliates against another with violence. This is what is known as tolerance. So they "agree to disagree." This means that they still disagree about the issue they were discussing, but they agree on the narrow matter of leaving that disagreement alone without resorting to violence. But, in a society where dissent is not ok, where there is no tradition of tolerance, if a disagreement does not end with agreement, then one or more of the individuals involved may initiate violence in order to force the dissenters to "change" their minds, to force them to obey. Note that I put "change" in quotes because they don't actually change their minds, and instead what they do is change their behavior in an effort to avoid violent retaliation from the aggressor.

Now that we've established the fundamental difference between terrorism and non-terrorism, let's consider how pervasive this idea is in our societies. Who do you know that tries to "change" other people's minds involuntarily? Parents. Many parents will punish their kids for disagreeing with them, as a means of causing them to "change" their minds. But as I said, they don't actually change their minds, and what actually happens is that they change their behavior in an effort to avoid the pain of punishment. Parents will also raise their voices and give ugly facial expressions, as a means of threatening punishment on the child if he doesn't "change" his mind.[5]

I suspect that the tradition of coercing people, with violence and threats of violence, as a means of causing obedience, is older than human civilization. And this tradition still pervades our societies today, even in our most open societies -- even in the USA where the tradition of tolerance is engrained as fundamental principles in our constitution.


Tradition of criticism

As I said before, some societies embrace dissent and tolerance, while other's don't. So what's the critical difference between them? The difference is the tradition of criticism.[6] If the people in a disagreement have a good attitude towards criticism, then they will enjoy their discussion, and they won't resort to initiating violence. And if they don't have a good attitude towards criticism, then they won't enjoy their discussion, and they may initiate violence. More importantly, having a good attitude towards criticism means understanding that disagreement between people is common and ok. Dissent is good. Criticism is good. The important thing here is related to one's attitude towards criticism, which is connected to his attitude towards dissent, which is connected to his willingness to change his mind if he finds out he's wrong.

Now the tradition of criticism is not a knew thing. The ancient greeks had it, though they lost it later. The tradition of criticism sprang up again in the 1500's or so, resulting in what we now call The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was many things, and science was one of them -- science has a strong tradition of criticism. Scientists expect to have their ideas criticized by other scientists, and they try their best to make their theories more criticizable, so that flaws can be more easily found.

The Enlightenment resulted in a boom of knowledge growth, one that we are still experiencing today. It started in Italy, but many other cultures have adopted this tradition of criticism since then, and so they too have joined The Enlightenment era.

For people to stop resorting to terrorism, they must adopt the tradition of criticism -- to hash out their differences with discussion instead of violence, criticism instead of intolerance, rationality instead of irrationality, peace instead of war.


Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Terrorism

"Many people in Europe and the US dispute the thesis that we are living through a clash of civilisations between Islam and the west. But a radical minority of Muslims firmly believes that Islam is under siege, and is committed to winning the holy war it has declared against the west. A larger group of Muslims, most of them in Europe and America, believes that acts of terror committed by fellow Muslims will unleash a western backlash against all Muslims indiscriminately. With this collective feeling of being persecuted, many Muslim families living in the west insulate themselves in ghettoes. Within those ghettoes, the agents of radical Islam cultivate their message of hatred and seek foot soldiers to fight as martyrs. Unhappy, disoriented youths in dysfunctional immigrant families make perfect recruits to such a cause. With continuing immigration from the Muslim world and a significantly higher birthrate in Muslim families, this is a phenomenon we ignore at our peril." [8]

——————————————————————

Join me to help finish my Islam book — give honest feedback, get your questions answered, and contribute your own ideas.

——————————————————————

[1, 3] _Embrace Islam or Else: Prophet Mohammad's Ultimatums to Foreign Kings_, M. A. Khan. [link: http://mostintolerantreligion.com/2012/06/07/embrace-islam-or-else-prophet-muhammads-ultimatums-to-foreign-kings/]

[2] Hadith, Bukhari: 4.52. 220

[4] These wars are called the Wars of Apostasy, or Ridda Wars [link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridda_wars]

[5] Now, whether or not the parent intends to raise his voice as a means of instilling fear doesn't matter. The act of raising one's voice when somebody disagrees with you was designed to cause someone to involuntarily "change" their mind. So just because the parent doesn't see it that way, doesn't mean that the child is not fearful of his parent. My point is that what matters is whether or not the child is scared from the parent's voice being raised, rather than whether or not the parent intends to instill fear.

[6] _The Beginning of Infinity_, by David Deustch. [link: http://beginningofinfinity.com]

[7] _Parenting and Reason_, by Elliot Temple. [link: http://fallibleideas.com/parenting-and-reason]

[8] _Nomad_, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Is Morality Objective?

Is morality objective?

Lot’s of people disagree about morality. Many of them think that since we disagree about it, that must mean that morality is subjective, as opposed to objective. But this reasoning doesn’t make sense because it’s analogous to saying that science is subjective since many scientists disagree about scientific theories. The reason we disagree is that none of us are infallible, and so people are making mistakes. None of us have reached the truth, but individually we are making our way towards it -- at least this is the case for the people that are genuinely trying to seek the truth.

Another reason some people think morality is subjective is that they think there is no objective way for people to agree. But this is not true either. To explain why, I'll explain what I mean by the idea that truth is objective.

Truth is objective. This means that every question has only one correct answer. This applies to moral truths like it does for any other truths.

Truth is also contextual. So morality is also contextual. No two people are ever in the exact same situation, so no two contexts are exactly the same. One consequence of this is that what is right for me is not necessarily right for you, and vice versa.

The objectivity of morality refers not so much to moral conclusions, but rather to the standard by which moral conclusions are determined. Judges should come to their conclusions using a standard that is independent of any individual judge. Analogously, scientists should come to their conclusions using a standard that is independent of any individual scientist.

Often, judges and scientists draw the wrong conclusions, but the method by which they reach their conclusions ensures that their conclusions will be revised in the future when new evidence or criticism is found. In the US judicial system, all court cases are open to appeal. This means that the law treats court decisions as tentative, and so the law is setup to keep all decisions open to revision. The same goes for science. All scientific theories are treated as our best theories to date -- which means that any scientific theory might be flawed and so it's important to keep them all of them open to revision. And the same goes for moral conclusions. Everybody should treat their moral conclusions as fallible, just like court decisions and scientific theories -- which means that any moral idea might be flawed and so it's important to keep them all open to revision. To clarify, even the standard by which we come to conclusions is a fallible standard, and it too is open to revision.


So what is the standard and how does it work?

Let’s consider science first. The standard for science is this: A theory is scientific if and only if it can, in principle, be ruled out by empirical evidence. So if there is a theory that is claimed to be scientific, and if it cannot, in principle, be ruled out by empirical evidence, then it is not scientific, and instead, it is what we call psuedo-science.

The standard for morality is similar, and it applies to other kinds of knowledge too, not just morality. The standard is this: An idea is objective if and only if it is intended to solve a problem. Note that this even applies to science. The problem that a scientific theory is intended to solve is explaining physical reality while making testable predictions about it, such that the predictions are consistent with all our existing empirical evidence.

An objective idea is one that can be found to be false. And one way to determine whether it's false is to determine whether or not the idea fails to solve the problem it’s intended to solve. So if a person judges that a moral idea fails to solve the problem it's intended to solve, then that is it’s flaw. And if the idea is flawed, then it’s false, and so it should not be acted on. To clarify, when we explain why the idea doesn’t solve the problem it’s intended to solve, this explanation constitutes a criticism of the idea. It refutes the idea. [2]

So if an idea is flawed, then it's refuted. And if it doesn't have a flaw, then it's unrefuted. Now I've made that sound pretty simple but it's a lot more complicated than that. For one thing, people are fallible, which means that any of our ideas may be mistaken, which means that even our criticism can be flawed. That's why it's important to keep all our ideas on the table, even our criticisms.

So to clarify how refutation works, if an idea has an unrefuted criticism, then the idea is tentatively refuted. And, the unrefuted status of the criticism is also tentative. So if somebody comes along with a criticism of that criticism, then the original idea is now unrefuted.

A second thing to consider is how criticism works. A criticism is an explanation of a flaw in an idea. Now some ideas are vague -- their purpose is not clear. In other words, the problem that the idea is intended to solve is not clear. This makes it hard to find a flaw in it. For this reason, the fact that the idea is vague is a useful criticism of the idea. In other words, if the idea's purpose is unclear, then it's refuted.

Now people often disagree about what things are unclear, but this is a soluble problem. One way to do it is to identify what problem the idea is intended to solve. The people discussing the idea might go back and forth a bunch of times before the problem is established, but once that is agreed on, then it's easier to figure out if there is a flaw in the idea. Since the idea is a proposed solution for the intended problem, if we can explain how the proposed solution fails to solve the problem, then we've found a devastating criticism of that idea.

As an example, consider the case where somebody claims that some event caused some other event. If the claim doesn't have an explanation for the causal relationship, then that is a criticism of the claim -- that it's unexplained. It's a criticism because without an explanation, we can't find out if it's reasoning is wrong. So it's wrong for not having any reasoning.

So ideas that are intended to solve problems are objective. Those that don’t are subjective. And morality is about solving problems. A moral philosophy should be able to provide a method to answer questions like 'should I learn to read,' 'should I learn epistemology,' 'what and when should I eat,' 'how should I raise my children?' These are all ideas that are intended to solve specific problems. And for this reason, it's possible to find out if they fail to solve the problems they intend to solve.


------


[2] "... by an objective theory I mean a theory which is arguable, which can be exposed to rational criticism, preferably a theory which can be tested: one which does not merely appeal to our subjective intuitions." _Unended Quest_, Chapter 31, by Karl Popper.


----------------------------------------------[ Q & A ]--------------------------------------------------

Q: Morality is subjective because moral ideas are based in subjective premises.

A: No, the premises are fallible too. They can be shown to be wrong. And it's possible for people to agree on them. There is no law of nature preventing people from agreeing on the premises.


-------------[ Since it's about opinions, then it's subjective ]---------------

Q: Morals are merely opinions, all opinions are subjective. So morality is subjective.

A: Do you think it's wrong for a parent to murder his 2 y.o. child for crying too much? Or do you believe that that opinion is not wrong? If you believe the opinion is wrong, well that raises the question: By what standard did you judge the opinion wrong? If you have a standard, well then that means you are treating morality objectively.


-------------[ Basing ideas on personal feelings and opinions ]--------------

Q: Morality can't be objective because people form their moral codes based on or influenced by personal feelings and opinions. There are plenty examples of this.

A: Yes, lots of people justify (aka base) their ideas on other ideas/feelings, rather than look for flaws in them. But justifying ideas is wrong. So any idea that uses justification, is also wrong. And what you're saying is that there are a lot of examples of people coming to conclusions using false methods of reasoning (justification), but so what? Just because some people are wrong about justificationism doesn’t mean that morality is subjective. For one thing, they are able to learn that their method is wrong. There is no law of nature preventing them from learning it. [...] To clarify, coming to conclusions by working out which one feels right is not an objective method.


-------------[ Dismiss all personal experience as invalid ]---------------

Q: I think that you have it all entirely the wrong way round. We are our emotions, our sense impressions, our ideas, our experiences. Assuming there is something 'out there', we can only encounter it through the filter of our minds. We can't encounter the world objectively; we can only do so individually and then compare our experiences in order to find a satisfactory way of understanding it . If you dismiss all personal experience as invalid, then you dismiss even the possibility of knowledge.

A: I agree that we can only encounter "it" through the filter of our minds. But I did not dismiss all experience as invalid. That’s not what fallibility means. You’ve misinterpreted me. [...] That an idea/feeling/experience is fallible, means that it COULD be wrong, which also means that it COULD be right. And you’ve missed this part. You just said that my position is that “all experience as invalid” which means that all experience is wrong, which actually contradicts my position. [...] My point is that justifying one's ideas/feelings/experiences by other ideas/feelings/experiences is a wrong way to come to conclusions -- it means trying to prove one's ideas/feelings/experiences, which is a mistake because that means not looking for flaws in them, and doing that means keeping your ideas/feelings static, preventing them from evolving. The right way is to try to find flaws in one's ideas/feelings/experiences and fixing them, which means evolving/improving your ideas/feelings.


-------------[ Absolutes in morality ]---------------

Q: I read your essay and it's clear to me that you don't understand the meaning of objective morality, if morality is objective, as you clearly believe it to be, then there are absolutes in terms of morality, which is incorrect. In order for there to be an absolute it has to be based on some outside force, in the case of morality theists argue that that source is god. If you believe morality to be objective you need to prove where it comes from, what is the basis for morality?

A: So you believe your claim because it feels clear to you? That’s a non-argument. Your feelings are not an objective standard for knowledge. [...] Re your assertion that if morality is objective then there are absolutes in terms of morality -- that is an unexplained assertion, so it's wrong for being unexplained. [...] Re outside force -- I disagree that knowledge has a basis. I disagree that there needs to be some outside force (god) in order for morality to be objective. Knowledge is created by guesses and criticism, not by basing it on other knowledge. Ideas need not, and cannot, be proved. Ideas have flaws and what we can do is seek out and fix flaws thus evolving our ideas.


-------------[ Ideas can't be proved ]--------------

Q: Re your idea that ideas can't be proved -- Really? Gravity is an idea, Evolution is an idea!

A: Yes really. There are many theories of gravity and evolution, and not all of them are correct. There is only one theory of gravity that is consistent with all our existing evidence. There is only one theory of evolution that is consistent with all our existing evidence. All the other theories of gravity and evolution have been refuted by empirical evidence. So ideas can only be ruled out, they cannot be proved.

-------------[ Popular opinion ]-----------------

Q: Just because someone has a moral standard does not mean that morality is objective. Objective means based on facts, I can have a moral standard based on the popular opinion in my society!

A: Coming to conclusions by determining which ideas are most popular is not an objective method. That's analogous to a scientist who bases his opinion of a scientific theory by polling all other scientists to find out the popular opinion of the population of scientists.


-------[ Morality is contextual as a means of dodging questions? ]--------

Q: Does the additional context just create a new question in order to dodge answering the initial question or render it irrelevant due to lacking context about the individuals involved?

A: A lot of moral relativists (aka subjectivists) use their philosophy as a means of dodging questions posed by moral objectivists. I think it’s bad to dodge questions. And I think it’s bad to adopt a philosophy as a means of dodging questions.

----[ Does morality is contextual mean that morality is subjective? ]----

Q: By allowing data to be seen in different contexts, are you not arguing morality is subjective to begin with? (Objectivity comes into question when subjective data is deemed accurate or not in certain contexts.)

A: No. I'll give an example to clarify. Let’s say that John is in a situation and he decides that action X is his best course of action. Let’s say that John seeks Paul’s help to figure out if there is something better than X. So John tells Paul all the details that John thinks Paul needs to know to make a moral determination. Now let’s say that after hearing all the details that John gave, Paul is not sure if X is right or wrong, and he has a question about another detail that John didn’t give. So Paul asks John the question, and John answers it, and the answer is a detail that wasn’t mentioned earlier. Now lets say Paul has enough information now, and he thinks that action X is wrong because action Y is better for a reason that Paul explains to John. Now let’s say that John agrees with Paul’s reason, and let’s say John doesn’t have any new criticisms, so John agrees that action Y is better than action X so he chooses to do Y instead of X.

So let’s summarize what happened. John was in a situation and he thinks that the relevant contextual details are A, B, and C, and he decides that action X is his best course of action, but he wants other people’s help to make sure. John explains this context to Paul, and Paul thinks that the contextual details that John thought were enough, were not enough. So Paul asks John a question whose answer reveals contextual detail D. At this point, Paul and John agree that contextual detail D changes the context such that the best course of action is Y rather than X. 

Now back to your question. Does this mean that morality is subjective? No. It’s possible for John and Paul to agree that John’s understanding of the context is missing some details that are relevant in determining what is the best course of action.



In science, the method is this: Create a falsifiable theory, and then test in the effort to falsify it.

In everything else, we do not have access to empirical evidence, which means that we can't falsify them. Instead we use criticism to refute them. A criticism is an explanation of a flaw in an idea. If an idea is flawed, that means that it fails to solve the problem it's intended to solve.

Now this method is actually a general case of the one used in science. The problem that a scientific theory (aka idea) is intended to solve is to explain reality such that the explanation makes testable predictions and such that the explanation is consistent with all empirical evidence.

Now the reason this standard works is because scientific theories are the only kind of theories that one can apply the scientific method on. The scientific method is to create a falsifiable theory, and then test it in the effort to falsify it.

And the reason that this standard works is because objective ideas are the only kind of ideas that one can apply an objective method on. 

_Why atheists fail to persuade theists._

_Why atheists fail to persuade theists._

Most people have the wrong epistemology, theists and atheists alike. One's epistemology is how he determines what is true and what is false.

Karl Popper found this mistake and called it Justificationism. This is how justification is supposed to work. Say you have an idea. For this idea to be believed, i.e. considered knowledge, i.e. considered true, the idea must be justified.

The problem with this epistemology is that it’s impossible to work — an idea can never be justified. Whatever justification one has for the idea, is itself an idea, so by justificationism's own reasoning, the justification needs a justification to justify it so that it can be considered true. But then, in order to consider that justification true, we need another justification for it. And so on, forever. This is an infinite regression problem that needs a solution.

So what’s the solution? Popper figured out that the solution is to break the cycle by not seeking justification at all.[1] Instead, he said that an idea is considered (tentatively) true if there are no criticisms of that idea [2] — a criticism is an explanation of a flaw in an idea.[3]

To be clear about how criticism works, we need to understand that flaws can only make sense in the context of a problem. Ideas are solutions to problems. So if there is a criticism of an idea, it explains why the idea fails to solve the problem — that is it's flaw.[3]

Now, even if an idea has a criticism, thus rendering the idea false, the criticism itself could be wrong. So if somebody comes along with a criticism of that criticism, then the idea is rendered true again. So this means that an idea can be true, but only tentatively, until a criticism of it is found. So instead of using the terms true and false, it’s better to use the terms unrefuted and refuted because it's more clear that these labels are always treated as tentative.

So let’s do an example. Isaac Newton created his theory of gravity.[4] No one had any criticisms of it for 300 years. During that time, the theory was unrefuted (aka tentatively true). Then Einstein showed that Newton’s theory doesn’t work for anything going near the speed of light. For 300 years scientists thought that Newton’s theory was true — would never be refuted — but they were wrong. Einstein refuted it. [To be clear, we still use Newton’s theory of gravity in situations where the objects are not going near the speed of light because it’s a pretty good approximation as long as you stay within these constraints.]

Now, what some atheists do is to say that the God idea is wrong because it’s not justified by evidence. And this is a mistake because justification is a mistake. And the theists can claim the same thing: that the idea that God doesn't exist is wrong because it’s not justified by evidence — and they are correct about that. So, by atheists using this false epistemology in their arguments, they give theists the same tool to use in their counter-arguments, thus creating a stalemate. But the only reason this is a stalemate is because the atheists are framing the problem like this: You don't have evidence to justify your claim.[5]

The Popperian way to think about this is to think about which idea is unrefuted and which is refuted. Now to be clear, a refutation does not require physical evidence gathered from experiments. A refutation can be an explanation of a flaw in an idea.

So let’s consider the God and No-God ideas. Both the God idea and the No-God idea have no evidence against them. But let’s ask why the God idea doesn’t have any evidence against it. It’s because the God idea doesn’t make any testable predictions.[6] And without testable predictions, we cannot design an experiment that could test it. So it's not a scientific theory. But that doesn’t mean that we should consider it true. We should also look for criticisms of the idea that don't use physical evidence..

As for the No-God idea, it also doesn’t make any testable predictions. But that’s not really the rival idea to God. The competing idea is Evolution. And the Evolution theory does make testable predictions. And to date, we haven’t found any evidence that refutes the theory of Evolution. To be clear, that a theory makes testable predictions, means that it’s a scientific theory. So the Evolution theory is a scientific theory that hasn’t been refuted by evidence, while the God idea is not a scientific theory and thus cannot have any physical evidence against it because it doesn’t even make any testable predictions.

But as I said before, we don’t need physical evidence to refute ideas. We can do with criticism alone. If we have just one unrefuted criticism of an idea, then that idea is refuted.

So are there any criticisms of the God idea? Well in order to figure that out, let’s consider what problem the God idea is supposed to be solving. The most common problem that theists claim the God idea solves is this [7]:

"Where does 'apparent design' come from? Where does complexity come from? Where do adaptations come from? Where do useful or purposeful things come from? All of these questions are fundamentally asking roughly the same thing: Where does knowledge come from?" (source: http://fallibleideas.com/evolution-and-knowledge).

Now, everyone knows that people create knowledge, but where did people come from?

The God idea attempts to solve this problem by saying that God created people. But this doesn’t solve the problem — all it does is add a layer of indirection. God is a complex, intelligent being, like people. God contains knowledge, so where did God come from?

So that’s the contradiction. The “solution” does not solve the problem because all it does is create a new problem of the same type: What created God?

The solution to this problem should address the question of knowledge, rather than sidestep it.

The solution to this problem is Evolution. For more on that, see _Evolution and Knowledge_, by Elliot Temple (link: http://fallibleideas.com/evolution-and-knowledge).

--------------[ 1 ]---------------

Q: But this clearly doesn't apply to mathematics because mathematics is only concerned with proof and justification. And without either of these two elements, you have nothing (as far as mathematics is concerned).

A: I disagree. When mathematicians created their math ideas, they did it by guessing ideas, and criticizes their guesses. What you're calling a proof is an argument that argues for the math idea. When a math guy creates an argument (aka proof), he goes through many iterations before he lands on something he's happy with, something that addresses all of his own criticism. The point is that the argument is fallible, and the mathematician treats it that way.

--------------[ 2 ]---------------

Q: So as long as I say something is true, even if it isn't it's true until someone says "no it isnt" then what they say becomes the truth. I don't think we would get very far if this were the case.

A: That's how the US judicial system works. And I think it works pretty good. Somebody might go to jail because of a theory of his guilt, but the case can always be appealed, because the court knows that it's possible something was wrong with the evidence, or something else. So even the courts know that their decisions are tentative.

Q: I don't know if I agree. There is a burden of proof requirement in criminal cases in the US. It's a fallible system and innocent people do get convicted. That theory in the op has no burden of proof. It's simply states because "I say so"

A: No you’ve misunderstood. If “you say so” that I’m guilty by doing specific thing X. And “I say so” that I’m innocent by doing specific thing Y instead, and if there is no evidence to refute either claim, then it’s a stalemate — both are refuted — innocent until proven guilty.


--------------[ 3 ]---------------

Q: Rami, if I am correct, you are arguing that the default position for any argument should be that it is correct until it is criticized. I do not think this is reasonable. For one thing, it is difficult to define what a criticism is. How do we show something is a criticism?

A: My answer is long so I decided to blog it: How does criticism work?


--------------[ 4 ]---------------

Q: You're using the wrong definitions for theory, hypothesis, and law. So your essay is wrong.

A: No. Just because I use different words than you do, that doesn't mean that my ideas are different than yours. Two people can say the same sentences and mean different ideas by them. Also, two people can say different sentences and mean the same ideas by them. So, the words theory, hypothesis, and law, in the way I used them, are all the same thing in that they are testable/falsifiable theories, which is what gives them scientific status. As Popper explained, a theory is scientific if and only if it can, in principle, be ruled out by physical evidence. This is known as The Line of Demarcation -- it separates science from non-science. Note that some people claim to be doing science but they don't create testable/falsifiable theories and test them, so they aren't doing science since they aren't doing the scientific method. So it's important to be selective with which theories get to be classified as scientific. Just because it's claimed to be scientific doesn't mean it is. Make your own judgement call. Don't trust it just because it's claimed to be scientific.


--------------[ 5 ]---------------

Q: If (physical) evidence isn't used as justification in support of a theory, then how is it used?

A: Evidence refutes theories. Evidence is criticism. To be clear, only scientific theories can be ruled out by evidence.

--------------[ 6 ]---------------

With the God idea I'm talking about the harder case where it doesn't make any testable predictions. I know that some people's idea of God does make testable predictions, but I didn't talk about that in my essay because that's easier to refute, since you can refute it with physical evidence.


--------------[ 7 ]---------------

There are some other common reasons people give for believing in God which I explain in another essay, _Is God real?_.

----[ What about morality? ]----

Q: If people become atheists, doesn't that mean they will become immoral?

A: Why would that happen? Morality is a body of knowledge about what is right and wrong. Humans can create any kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge. So just because a person leaves a religion, that doesn't mean he'll throw out his morality. For example, a christian knows that murder is wrong. If he stops believing in god and christianity, that doesn't mean that he'll stop believing that murder is wrong.


----[ What about certainty? ]----

Q: If anyone is very sure about existence of God, either atheist or theist, how do you have that "certainty?" Would anyone like to share?

A: Humans can not have certainty. All our knowledge is conjectural. We do not have infallible sources of knowledge. [...] I am an atheist. I believe that there is no being that created the universe. And I came to this conclusion by the same standard that I come to all my conclusions -- if an idea has an unrefuted criticism, then it's refuted, and alternatively, if an idea does not have any unrefuted criticisms, then it's unrefuted.

-----[ more on persuading ]-----

Q: How do I persuade a theist?

A: Ask him, "What question does your god claim answer?"  Or "What problem does your god claim solve?"  That puts the ball in his court. Don't take the ball back until he has given you a question to work with. Then you criticize it. Show how their god claim doesn't solve their intended problem. ~~~ If you are arguing with a theist and you're not sure how to criticize his question, post it here and I'll help you. Or email me privately.


-----[ Clarification on Popper ]------

Q: Popper did not argue that anything non-scientific cannot be true, rather he criticized pseudo-science - ie claiming something is scientific when it is not. Popper recognized that some things cannot be tested.

A: I didn’t argue that either. I said that scientific theories can be refuted by empirical evidence and by criticism, and that non-scientific theories can be refuted by criticism. So any theory, scientific or not, that has an unrefuted criticism of it, is false. And any theory, scientific or not, that doesn’t have any unrefuted criticisms of it, is true. Now I use these labels true and false tentatively, since we can’t predict future criticisms, i.e. we can’t predict future knowledge creation.






Rami Rustom a lot of arguments i hear from atheists go like this: What evidence do you have of god?

12 minutes ago · Like




Rami Rustom But that's a bad question because you can't get evidence of god.

12 minutes ago · Like




Rami Rustom And then the theist counters with: What evidence do you have that god doesn't exist?

10 minutes ago · Like




Rami Rustom And that's a bad question too, because you can't get evidence that god doesn't exist. (to be clear, i'm talking about the harder god claim, the one that doesn't make any testable predictions.)

How does criticism work?

Question: 

Rami, if I am correct, you are arguing that the default position for any argument should be that it is correct until it is criticized. I do not think this is reasonable. For one thing, it is difficult to define what a criticism is. How do we show something is a criticism?

Answer:

Criticism has no meaning outside the context of a problem.

A criticism is an explanation of a flaw in an idea.

An idea is a solution to a problem.

Once the problem is defined, then we can talk about whether or not the proposed solution actually solves the problem.

I'll do a couple of examples.

Let's say the idea is: "God exists."

Well, what problem does that idea solve?

Let's say the theists says that the problem is: "What created the universe?"

And the theist's proposed solution is: "God did it."

So here's a criticism: "The proposed solution doesn't work because all it does is create another problem of the same type: What created god?"

So his god idea is refuted for containing a contradiction.

Here's another example. Let's say the idea is "Punishment works".

Well, what problem does that idea solve?

Let's say the punishment advocator says that the problem is: "How do I make someone change his bad behavior?"

And his proposed solution is: "The person who is doing wrong behavior must be punished so that next time that he thinks of doing that behavior, he'll avoid doing it in order to avoid the pain of the punishment."

So here's a criticism: "The proposed solution doesn't work because he hasn't learned why the behavior is wrong, nor what behavior is better than the wrong behavior, which means that even if he knew it's wrong, he hasn't learned a better way of behaving, so he'll continue doing what he knows. Changing one's behavior is a matter of learning. Learning requires explanations that the person doing the learning must agree with in order to be persuaded. For more on that, see my essay on Parenting.

-----[ more on criticism ]-----

Q: Re supernatural claims, when the claimant claims natural evidence warrants supernatural causes.. Theism does this. There are hundreds of reasons theists use to justify their position. I see no connection. Is this no connection an acceptable criticism? Or under Popper's idea, the claims persist due to no criticism existing?

A: If somebody claims a cause, and if he doesn't give an explanation for his claim, then that's a criticism of his claim -- that it is unexplained. It's a criticism because without an explanation, we can't find out if it's reasoning is wrong. So it's wrong for not having any reasoning. A similar criticism is of vague explanations. If you have an idea, and you tell me your explanation, and if that explanation seems vague to me -- meaning that it could mean like 10 different things -- then my response will be 'Your explanation is vague' which is a criticism of your explanation. At this point you could clarify your explanation in an effort to make it less vague.

Rethinking Higher Education

Americans grow up being told this idea that earning a degree means getting higher-paying jobs and having more job options. I think this is a conclusion people draw from a static they hear repeated on TV that college graduates on average earn more than everybody else by $1,000,000 over their lifetime.

Oil painting by Ragod Rustom

The problem with this reasoning is that it treats all college students the same, when they aren't. Students who take advantage of opportunities, do better than those who don't. And this is true for people both during and after school. More importantly, the people who seek out and take advantage of opportunities learn way more than those who don't -- and it's the lifelong learners that earn more than everybody else. So, going to college isn't the thing that increases a person's chances of success, because college doesn't make you seek out and take advantage of opportunities. 

So the relevant question should be, if you go to college, what are you going to do there? Are you going to wait for teachers and job placement counselors to give you opportunities and to tell you how to take advantage of them?

College-bound highschoolers?

Now some people choose to go to college because they got excellent grades in high school and they think that that means they will get into the best schools, which they think translates to being selected first for the best jobs. But this reasoning has the same problem as before -- it treats all jobs the same, when they aren't. It ignores that job availability depends on supply and demand. So if you place yourself in a pool of job applicants in an industry where there is way more supply than demand, for example attorneys (see this article for more), then you might be left with a job that doesn't require your degree, or worse, no job at all. When employers are choosing to fill positions, they would rather take their chances with experienced people over college grads with great grades.

But it's even worse than that. To illustrate how bad the situation is for so many college grads, let's consider two options that a person might have available to him coming out of high school; going to college, and getting a job.

The financial cost of college

The college option typically costs $80,000 in tuition for four years*. Now let's assume that you're still living with your parents as a means of saving money. Let's also say you chose not to work during that period so that you could put more of your effort into getting good grades without having to struggle with a job because that would consume some of your time and attention. So there's an opportunity cost on the college option since it's competing with the job option, and it amounts to whatever you would have earned had you been working a job for those four years. To make this conservative, let's say you worked as a full-time cashier at a fast food restaurant making $7.50 an hour -- that comes to $50,000 for the four years of take-home pay, taking into account taxes and social security and medicare. Going along with the theme of saving money, you would save all your take-home income by getting your parents to pay for your food and everything else, just like they would have done for you had you chosen the college option. So by the end of the four years, the difference between the college option and the job option is $130,000.

But that's not all. There are some variables that are harder to calculate. Had you been working for those four years, you would have been learning job skills that would have helped you get higher-paying jobs, because that's what employers want, job skills. To be clear, had you been working for four years, you would have been promoted a few times during that period, and with each promotion you would have gotten more pay and more learning opportunities -- while with the college option, you don't get that (see this article for more).

So not only does the college option set you back $130,000 compared to the job option, it also sets you back in time. That's four years that you could have been learning job skills that employers want -- so this is another type of opportunity cost. 

And to be clear, the $130,000 figure is conservative since it assumes that you didn't get any promotions during the four year period.


College is an investment

Now a lot of people think of college as an investment. But if you're going to think of it as an investment, then you sure better treat it that way too. So consider the analog -- an investment of your hard-earned money into a new business that you are going to start up. Now, you know the business might not become profitable. So you know that you are risking your money -- you could lose your entire investment! And the prudent thing to do is to do everything in your power to make this business a success -- short of anything immoral that is. So that means that you should seek out and take advantage of opportunities that could make you successful, because just putting in the investment doesn't guarantee that the investment turns a profit. It's the same with college -- if you sit back and wait for opportunities to fall in your lap, then your investment won't turn a profit.


Does getting a specialized degree help?

Now you might think that you can get around this problem by getting a specialized higher degree so that you could get specialized jobs, like being an attorney, but that doesn't work for most people either. Some attorneys who are just starting out, even if they ended up getting a job with their specialized degree, don't even make enough money to make their loan payments and so they resort to making hard decisions like working for the government in order to get their debt erased (see this article for more), or moving to larger cities where the pay is higher. To be clear, lots of government attorney jobs are competitive and lots of attorneys wish they could get those jobs.

Ok so that's a bad situation, but maybe there are other specialized jobs that fair better? Sure. You could be a physician. At least that way you could make enough money to afford the loan payments. But now we're talking about 8 years of school beyond high school and then you're only making $40,000 a year while you're in training in a residency program for at least three more years. And that isn't enough income to afford your loan payments unless you're still living at home -- which would raise the question: How long do you plan to be living at your parent's house?


So who should go to college?

If school is not for everybody, then who is it for? Well it depends on the situation. Let's say you've loved building things your whole life and you want to do experimental physics, then maybe a PhD in Physics is for you. But even someone like this might prefer to work as an engineer, which might only require a Bachelors degree. Or maybe he'd prefer to work as a computer programmer in order to fund his love of building things at home using 3D printers and other CNC machines without being paid for it (see Make magazine for more) -- although it's possible he invents something that people would be willing to pay money for, CHA-CHING! Also, being a computer programmer allows you to automate actions into the things you make -- that's robotics! And that's not the only advantage. Computer programming doesn't need any degrees (see this article for more), and it's something you can start learning as soon as your parents give you a computer.

When deciding whether or not to do higher education, some people have the opportunity to take advantage of scholarships for some or all of the cost of tuition, room, and board. For these people, the college option is better, but not by much. You still have the problem of not earning money, so by the end of four years, you are net neutral on money instead of net positive, which is what you would have been had you gotten working instead of attending college. You still have the problem of losing four years of learning job skills. A full-ride scholarship does not solve these problems, so it's important to make sure not to go to college just because you have access to a full scholarship.

Most people who want to improve their job options would do well to seek a job that requires only a training program at a trade school, say for welding or hairstyling, which is something people can do while working full-time. Similarly, lots of higher-paying jobs like paralegal, medical assistant, and message therapist only require an Associates degree and again, you can attend these schools while working full-time. Some of these programs can be done online which makes it a lot easier for full-time workers and for those who have children.


Social pressure as a reason to go to college

Now there is another dynamic at play here. Lots of people feel pressured to go to school, from parents and friends. When asked the question, "why do you want to go to college?" they answer "so I can say to people that I went to college" or "my parents never approve of anything I do, so if I graduate from college then they would get off my back." So they seek prestige because prestige makes them feel better -- because having prestige makes other people react in certain ways that they prefer. But these people are wrong that society is pressuring them. What's happening is that these people pressure themselves because they care what other people think about them -- they crave social approval. These people would do better to learn how to live their lives by their own opinions, as opposed to living their lives by the opinions of others.

Social pressure as a reason to not take a McJob

Just like going to college to seek prestige, lots of people also choose not to take minimum wage jobs as a means of seeking prestige. These people think of these "McJobs" as low-class and only for dumb people. They think that if they take a "McJob," then they will lose prestige. But this doesn't make sense. The cost of acquiring prestige is more than the potential benefit, so what's the point of having it? In fact, it seems to work against earning more money -- since the alternative of getting a McJob would help you learn job skills that you could use towards getting higher-paying jobs later. For more on prestige, see The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand.

Having prestige does not improve your life. You should make decisions that add value to your life, and having the ability to say to your friends "I'm a college graduate" and "I don't work at McDonalds" may add perceived value to your life but it does not add actual value.

So, when deciding whether or not to do higher education, make sure you are making a choice that is right for you, that takes into account your situation, your interests, your goals, and that doesn't depend on how other people perceive you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The $80,000 tuition figure is for 2013. Currently tuition prices are inflating 10% annually.


crit

people do actually lose prestige/status in the eyes of various people if they work a McJob for a long time

u can try and persuade people that prestige and status aren't worth having

This prestige won't help you get a job or earn more money, so what's the point of having it?

playing prestige and status games DOES get lots of people jobs, tho

its a life strategy

i don't think its a particularly good one

but u can't just pretend that it's totally ineffectual

When Rand wrote the Fountainhead, she didn't write Keating as totally failing at everything. She showed the miserable state of "success" by Keating's standards.

showing him just failing at everything would have been faking reality

Why the gender gap on physics assessments?

Researchers are lost on the question of why women consistently score lower than men on assessments of conceptual understanding of physics. Previous research claimed to have found the "smoking gun" that would account for the differences, but new synthesis of that past work has shown that there is no pattern to be found.

"These tests have been very important in the history of physics education reform," said Dr. McKagan, who co-authored the new analysis. Past studies have shown that students in classrooms using interactive techniques get significantly higher scores on these tests than do students in more traditional lecture settings; "these results have inspired a lot of people to change the way that they teach," said McKagan. But several studies had also reported that women's scores on these tests are typically lower than men's. Lead author Madsen said, "We set out to determine whether there is a gender gap on these concept inventories, and if so, what causes it."

But what problem are these researchers arguing over anyway? Are they thinking that all men and women on average should understand physics equally? Another question that this raises is: do they think that these tests accurately measure understanding of physics? Well in order to keep this piece short I'll assume that the tests accurately measure what it's creators claim they measure. So that still leaves the question: why should men and women understand physics equally?

To illustrate that this is the wrong question, consider two individuals, one that loves physics and doesn't particularly like art and another that doesn't particularly like physics and instead loves art. Should these two people be expected to learn physics equally? Should they be expected to learn how to draw equally? Of course not. Interest drives learning. Everybody knows this yet somehow researchers ignore it. When somebody is interested in a subject, they spend a lot of time thinking about it, enjoyably. And without interest, the person wouldn't think much on that subject. And trying to do so in spite of lack of interest is not enjoyable at all. It's painstaking. And that's precisely why lack of interest is a barrier to learning.

So what's going on? Why are these researchers thinking that lumping all women together and all men together is the correct way to figure out what's going on here? Do they think that interest in physics by women on average should be equal to interest in physics by men on average? Does that even make sense? I think these researchers are completely ignoring the concept that interest drives learning, and that differences in interest causes differences in learning. So then the question is: why are there differences in interest between men and women?

To answer that question, I'd like to consider a more primary question: why make this arbitrary division by gender? Why not divide by race? Should we expect that all races on average should have equal interest in physics? What about dividing by culture? I suspect that these researchers would think that dividing by race or culture wouldn't make sense because there are huge differences in background knowledge among the groups. But then that raises the question: why should we think that men and women in US schools, whom theoretically receive the same education opportunities on average, have the same background knowledge? Well men and women don't share the same background knowledge. Boys and girls are raised differently by their parents, and society treats them differently, so girls grow up with different background knowledge than boys. And it's these differences in background knowledge that result in differences in interest, which then results in differences in learning.

Just consider the two hypothetical individuals from before. One loves physics and the other loves art. The question is: why do they love different things? Is it that there are differences in genes between them that cause differences in interest? Or are the interests learned?

Well, even if genes are a factor then isn't it possible for the X chromosome and the Y chromosome to contain some genes that affect interest in things? And if this is the case, then what would the researchers be looking for exactly? If it's possible that women's lessor interest in physics is due to a gene on the Y chromosome, which men do not have, then whatever those researchers are looking for could easily be drowned out by this gender-specific gene difference. So even if some data "emerged" from the analysis, there is no way to know whether that identified variable is the cause or if the cause is actually a gender-specific gene. So why do the researchers think that the answer they are looking for would emerge from the analysis?

If it's a genetics issue, then the researchers are looking in the wrong places. And if it's not a genetics issue, well then we should be talking about the cultural differences between men and women as a factor in why they learn physics differently. And again, analogous to the genetic question, if it's a cultural issue, then researchers are looking in the wrong places.

So what's going on here? Why are these researchers looking in the wrong places? What are they doing wrong? Well this has already been answered decades ago by Karl Popper, a philosopher of science. He explained that many scientists do science wrong. The right way is to create a testable theory, and then to test that theory. The wrong way, which is what these researchers are doing, is to sift through data looking for theories, and never actually doing any tests that could possibly rule out a theory. It's a problem of scientific methodology.

Popper taught us that not all science is being done right. Kinda obvious huh? Well it's true. We need to be selective in figuring out what is good science and what just looks like science. And he created his Line of Demarcation to separate science from non-science. It goes like this: a theory is scientific if and only if it can (in principle) be ruled out by experiment. So that means that if a theory cannot be ruled out by experiment, then it's not scientific -- instead it is scientism, stuff that looks like science but isn't because there is no way to rule out the theories being hypothesized.

So the way to test whether or not a theory is scientific is to ask yourself, “what would it take to make this theory false?” If the answer is nothing, then it isn’t science.

So consider what these researchers are doing. They are assuming that there is a difference between men and women that should account for the differences in learning physics, and they are sifting through data hoping for the theory (the "smoking gun") to jump out at them. But this is backwards. Where is the part about creating an experiment that could rule out the theory? It's not there. They aren't even thinking about it. This is not science. It is scientism.

For more on the Line of Demarcation, see _Conjectures and Refutations_ (Chapter 11: The Demarcation Between Science and Metaphysics), by Karl Popper, or see the more recent and easier to read _The Beginning of Infinity_ (Chapter 1: The Reach of Explanations), by David Deutsch.

Author: Rami Rustom

---

Citation:

"The gender gap on concept inventories in physics: what is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?" A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan and E. C. Sayre, Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research.