Have You Tried OpenAI?
Open AI is an artificial intelligence chat bot, where you can ask it almost anything and it will generate an answer to the best of it's ability. People are using this tool to generate content, solving complex math equations, writing music, creating stories... the list goes on and on. This bot seems to know everything!
It's so popular that often it's "at capacity" and you have to get on a waiting list!
I asked chat.openai about the HIVE blockchain and this was it's response.
Hive is a blockchain-based social media platform that operates on a decentralized network and uses a cryptocurrency, Hive Token (HIVE), as its currency. It was created as a fork of the Steem blockchain in 2020, with the goal of creating a more decentralized, community-driven platform. Hive allows users to create and share content, curate and discover content, and earn rewards in the form of HIVE tokens. It has a similar feature set as Steemit and other blockchain-based social media platforms.
Wow, very good description, Mr. Artificial.
Why Are Scientific Theories Taught as if they are Absolute Truth?
A question that has been bugging me for years, especially concerning the education of my children, is why are certain assumptions taught to children when they are unproven theories? Without going into examples, I asked some open questions about the education process and how scientific theories are presented to young people.
My questions are highlighted in bold and the AI generated answers in
the form of a quotation
I take no credit for the computer generated answers.
My first question: Why are theories accepted as fact?
The AI responded with the definition of "scientific theory".
In science, a theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation for a phenomenon that has been observed in the natural world. Theories are based on extensive observations, experiments, and evidence, and they are used to describe and understand the underlying principles that govern how the world works. While a theory is not considered to be an absolute truth and is always open to revision or modification based on new evidence, it is considered to be a very reliable and well-established explanation for a particular set of observations.
Ok, fair enough. Buy why are they presented and accepted as fact if a "scientific theory" is not an "absolute truth"?
Theories are accepted as fact because they have been rigorously tested and have consistently been found to be accurate through repeated observations and experiments. While it is always possible that new evidence could be discovered that challenges a particular theory, it is highly unlikely that a well-established theory will be completely discarded. Instead, it is more likely that the theory will be modified or refined to incorporate the new evidence.
So theories are accepted as fact because of rigorous testing and found consistently accurate. Sounds good so far, I suppose. But wait, there's more!
It's important to note that while a theory is a well-supported explanation for a particular set of observations, it is not the same as a fact, which is an objective and verifiable observation that has been proven to be true. Theories are based on a large body of evidence, but they are still considered to be hypotheses that are subject to revision or modification in light of new evidence.
Ok, so in light of new evidence, a theory would have to be revised. But something bothered me about the answer, so I asked the AI:
If a theory is not considered to be absolute truth, why are they taught as truth?
In science, theories are considered to be very reliable and well-established explanations for a particular set of observations, but they are not considered to be absolute truth. While theories are based on extensive evidence and have been rigorously tested and found to be accurate through repeated observations and experiments, they are still subject to revision or modification in light of new evidence.
Ok, this is a rehash of what the AI had already said. Scientific theories are "reliable and well-established explanations" but not absolute truth. Couldn't a lie also be a "reliable and well-established explanation"? Isn't a LIE the exact opposite to absolute truth? Being "reliable" or "well-established" does not make something true. In fact lies are often "reliable" and are accepted if they are "well established". Lies also have to be revised as new points of fact attempt to expose them, so lies are always "subject to revision". Not that every scientific theory is a lie, but according to this definition they very well COULD be lies. Even the AI admits they are NOT absolute truth.
I ask the AI:
So why are theories taught as if they are absolute truth if they are subject to revision?
Despite this, it is common for theories to be taught as if they are absolute truth, especially in the early stages of science education. This is often done because it can be difficult to convey the full complexity of scientific theories to students who are just learning about them. Teaching theories as absolute truth can be a useful simplification that helps students to understand the basic principles underlying a particular scientific concept.
What what? We lie because it's difficult to convey the full complexity of scientific theories? That is why theories are taught as if they are absolute truth? Hmmm, sketchy. Anything more AI?
It is important for students to understand, however, that scientific theories are not static and that they are subject to revision as new evidence is discovered. This is a key aspect of the scientific process, and it is what allows science to continually improve and advance our understanding of the natural world.
Ok, so a key aspect of the scientific process is to understand that scientific theories are not static. Why don't we teach this "key aspect" in the early stages of science education? Is it really that difficult to convey?
I decide at this point to question the morality of lying to young students of the sciences. Not that I would rely on AI for morality, but I asked the AI to clarify anyway:
Wouldn't teaching a theory which is not absolute truth as absolute truth be lying?
Teaching a scientific theory as if it is absolute truth could be considered misleading, but it is not necessarily the same as lying. In science, a theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation for a particular set of observations, but it is not considered to be an absolute truth. While theories are based on extensive evidence and have been rigorously tested and found to be accurate through repeated observations and experiments, they are still subject to revision or modification in light of new evidence.
This is an interesting response. The AI confessed that it is "misleading" to teach young students scientific theories as if they are absolute truth, when they are not absolute truth and "subject to revision", but it's not "lying". What is the difference?
I found this article which tries to make the case that "misleading" is different than "lying". Basically, if a statement is misleading, but doesn't outright make a false statement, it's not considered lying.
What a garbage philosophy!
If a teacher believes that a scientific theory is absolute truth and teaches students the same, then I could see how it might not by "lying", even though they are "misleading" their students in their ignorance.
But can we honestly say a qualified science teacher wouldn't know the function of a scientific theory? If a teacher knows a scientific theory is "subject to revision" wouldn't it be lying to teach the theory AS IF it were absolute truth?
Anyway, the AI continues:
It is common for scientific theories to be taught as if they are absolute truth, especially in the early stages of science education. This is often done because it can be difficult to convey the full complexity of scientific theories to students who are just learning about them. Teaching theories as absolute truth can be a useful simplification that helps students to understand the basic principles underlying a particular scientific concept.
This is a mechanical re-hash of what the AI had already said, that "misleading" students in the early stages of science education is justified because it's difficult to convey the complexity of how a scientific theory functions. Basically, AI is saying it's not lying, rather it's just too complex to teach young students the truth.
It is important for students to understand, however, that scientific theories are not static and that they are subject to revision as new evidence is discovered. This is a key aspect of the scientific process, and it is what allows science to continually improve and advance our understanding of the natural world.
If it's so important for students to understand that theories are not "static", why isn't this taught in the early stages of scientific education??? So I ask the AI:
Why are we misleading children in their early scientific learning experience?
It is not necessarily the intention to mislead children when scientific theories are taught as if they are absolute truth, especially in the early stages of science education. The purpose of teaching scientific theories in this way is to provide a foundation of understanding that can be built upon as students learn more about the subject.
It's unintentional? Students in the early stages of their scientific education are mislead, but it's not intentional? Why would a teacher introduce scientific theories (subject to revision) "as if they are absolute truth" to "provide a foundation of understanding". Really? Provide a scientific foundation out of the shifting sands of revisionist theories??? Ummm... The AI continues:
Teaching scientific theories as absolute truth can be a useful simplification that helps students to understand the basic principles underlying a particular scientific concept. This can be especially helpful for young students who are just learning about science and may not be ready to understand the full complexity of a scientific theory.
A "useful simplification" to help students. Wouldn't it be more useful to teach TRUTH as truth and THEORIES as theories? It seems there is a severe underestimation of the intelligence of young students and their capacity to understand what a theory really is. Teaching a theory as absolute fact is LYING and using that lie to provide "a foundation" for scientific understanding is a catastrophe! Doesn't matter if that lie is "a useful tool" or not, it's still lying to our children!
It is a very sad thing to learn that a lie (teaching scientific theories as absolute fact) is the basic foundation of scientific learning for young students. Time to ask a more philosophical question as I'm curious how the AI will respond. I ask the AI:
Isn't it morally wrong to mislead our children?
It is generally considered to be wrong to intentionally mislead or deceive someone, including children. In the context of science education, it is important to present information in a way that is accurate and honest, and to avoid misleading students or giving them false impressions.
Ok, now the AI is being honest. It is "generally considered" wrong. Not surprising that AI is a moral relativist! But the AI also states it is important to be accurate and honest. But then comes the AI loophole:
However, it is not necessarily wrong to simplify complex ideas or to use teaching techniques that are designed to help students understand new concepts. It is common for scientific theories to be taught as if they are absolute truth, especially in the early stages of science education, as a way of helping students to understand the basic principles underlying a particular scientific concept. This can be a useful simplification, but it is important for students to be taught that scientific theories are not absolute truth and that they are subject to revision as new evidence is discovered.
Here we go with the "useful simplification" again. It is not wrong to simplify a complex idea, but it IS morally wrong to be inaccurate and dishonest, especially as teachers know better. Misleading students (intentionally or unintentionally) in their early scientific education is not a legitimate "teaching technique". This is not my opinion, this is reality.
As students learn more about science and become more proficient in the subject, it is important for them to be taught to think critically and to understand the limitations and uncertainties of scientific knowledge. This will help them to develop a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the natural world and to recognize that science is an ongoing process of discovery and learning.
AI does state that eventually as a student becomes more "proficient" they can learn the truth.... Santa Clause isn't real. I mean Scientific Theories are not Absolute Truth. We can be assured though, by the time the student has grown past their "early scientific education", these Theories have been establish in their minds as irrefutable absolute truth. Even as the actual function of a theory is explained to them.
The final statement from the AI in answer to my question confesses that students may have to relearn things they assumed to be absolute truth (in their early education) as new revisions or modifications of a theory occur:
If a scientific theory is disproven or modified in light of new evidence, it is important for students to be taught about the revision or modification to the theory. This is a normal and expected part of the scientific process, and it is important for students to understand that science is an ongoing process of discovery and learning.
This begs a very important question:
If teachers are providing a foundation based on theory, and not on absolute truth, how would a student handle a situation where the theory is disproven? Wouldn't that create a scenario where for the sake of education and for the sake of children, no evidence can be accepted or entertained that might damage the theoretical assumptions which are taught to children a absolute truth?
(I thought that was a pretty good question on my part)
If a scientific theory is disproven or modified in light of new evidence, it is important for students to be taught about the revision or modification to the theory. This is a normal and expected part of the scientific process, and it is important for students to understand that science is an ongoing process of discovery and learning.
The AI just repeats itself. That's what I get for asking a computer a moral question.
Teaching students to think critically and to consider multiple perspectives is an important part of science education. This can help students to be open to new ideas and to be willing to revise their understanding of the world based on new evidence. It is important for students to understand that scientific theories are not absolute truth, but rather well-supported explanations that are subject to revision as new evidence is discovered.
Finally some sense! "revise their understanding of the world based on new evidence." is exactly how a theory should be treated!
It is not uncommon for scientific theories to be revised or modified as new evidence is discovered, and this is actually a key part of the scientific process. By encouraging students to think critically and to be open to new ideas, we can help them to develop a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the world and to recognize that science is an ongoing process of discovery and learning.
It is important, as the AI says, that students should think critically and be willing to revise or completely rethink their former assumptions... but at the same time the AI thinks that "misleading" students to "simplify complex ideas" to "provide a foundation" is a "useful teaching technique" for students "especially in their early scientific education".
My Conclusion from the Conversation
Why would it be standard practice to teach "scientific theory" as if it were "absolute fact" until students are old enough to learn the reality of scientific theory, that it is not absolute fact, but only a "reliable" and "well established" theory. The reality is that a scientific theory is a BELIEF.
Would a student really reprogram so easily? Going back and modifying the established absolute facts in their early scientific education so they would be open to revision as new data presents itself?
No. As I suggested to the AI
"For the sake of education and for the sake of children, no evidence can be accepted or entertained that might damage the theoretical assumptions which are taught to children a absolute truth."
Bless the Most High!
Teach Your Children Liberty from Sin
We encourage parents to teach their children principles of Godliness, beginning with the Word and an understanding who God is and what His Son has done to form a relationship with us.
No one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man’s work. 1 Corinthians 3:11-13
Teach Your children Liberty from Tyranny
Second to this is the principle of self-determination and freedom, lest we loose the ability to teach our children the first principle in future generations. Our children read the Tuttle Twin books, specifically to learn libertarian principles, which most people learn later in life. These books are useful for our family, and yours, to teach children concepts that seem complicated, but are made simple in these books. I am an affiliate for Libertas Publishing, your purchase will help our family grow financially.
Use coupon code FORTY for 40% off your purchase! Check out the books here.
"Politicians like problems because they can claim to have solutions... but their solutions often create even more problems."
Do You Like Discovering New Content?
ListNerds is a content discovery platform. Members promote content, various products and interesting links. Every click rewards you with MAIL credits to promote whatever content you want to share! If you'd like to learn more, visit Listnerds.com
