Suggestions for Knowledge Base

I recently made a post about what I would recommend people know to achieve what I would consider to be ‘scientific literacy’. I’d like feedback and suggestions here. I’d like to keep the content free.

I suppose my take on literacy would be what I would think is more ground up.
so NOT learning about what science has arrived at but rather a more hands on, how do we determine, task/epistemology based approach.
Get some problems and consider different ways of arriving at the solution. Even more children have some basic limit the variables, repeat and see what is the cause instincts. Guiding these and highlighting them towards getting the scientitic method at a concrete, this problem level seems more important to me than getting the facts.

Right, I think that’s kind of what I meant when I said “More than that, though, I think that the Philosophy of Science and the History of Science are pretty relevant things to be moderately knowledgeable about” The ‘that’ that I was referring to when I said ‘more than that’ was the facts part of it. I agree completely that understanding how science works should be prioritized over understanding specific scientific facts. Certainly.

Richard Lewontin’s Triple Helix is indispensable.

amazon.com/Triple-Helix-Gene … 0674006771

Sorry, I should have specified that I’d like to focus on free materials. It sounds like a really interesting book though.

Ah, in that case…

stephenjaygould.org/library.html

I think I primer on evolution is a great idea.
I hope you don’t take offense to this, but I’m not sure Gould is the one to read for that. I know he’s seen as a bit of a popularizer for evolution, which is no small matter and deserves recognition, but he’s apparently known for misrepresenting evolutionary theory as well, pretty drastically.

You did link to some Dawkins in there, and though I’ve not read his stuff on evolution myself, I’ve heard a lot of great and interesting things about it.

But yes, I do think that the knowledge base page could use a good primer on evolution. I’d like to find a better one than that (no offense, it truly has nothing to do with you, I had just happened to read that Gould article a few months ago and remembered it).

flannel----can you say specifically why gould is not appropriate…

There’s a link in that post.

flannel—i realize there is a link…the link starts out by stating that goulds reputation is mud…sorry
that doesnt say much…i would like some specifics from you…not from that link…

It gives specifics in the link, turtle. Don’t just read the first paragraph and give up buddy. It’s not that long of an article. Just read it.

I don’t think that a knowledge base is a good idea unless it’s just a sticky thread where people can post interesting/useful links. Anything more will establish a dogma and limit discussion.

flannel would you tell me what you agree with and what you dont agree with in that link…

I don’t think so. It’s not required, it’s optional, for those people who wish to become more science/math-literate. Discussion on the science/math subforum is already pretty scant as it is, I don’t think a thread which suggests becoming more knowledgeable is going to limit discussion. It’s not so much about ‘agree with these things I’m linking’, it’s more about ‘whether you disagree with these links or not, they will help you to communicate your points more clearly, and to understand the points of others more clearly’.

Eg if I link to an evolution introduction, I’m not saying ‘Everyone, agree with evolution,’ I’m saying ‘If you want to talk about evolution or evolution-related fields, regardless of whether or not you disagree, you’ll certainly put your mouth in your foot less often if you at least understand some basics of the current state of the field of study.’

You rejected Anon’s suggestion of Gould as a legitimate source. So, you are establishing what is correct in regard to evolution and science in general.

I’m just establishing what I’m going to link to. I don’t have the power to establish what is correct in general. That’s not something I’m capable of.

There’s one other problem with that link as well: it seems, at a glance, to be a list of scattered articles all grouped together. I’m looking for a sort of more cohesive introduction to the theory of evolution, as opposed to a bunch of random articles about evolution. Something that starts from the beginning and leaves the reader at a point where they have a solid footing on the topic, and preferably does so concisely.

The knowledge base thread will be open to anyone? And you won’t delete/modify posts?

I knew this would be a bit contentious when I started it, which is why I’m trying to make this as clear as possible:

There’s no requirement for agreement, there’s no requirement for even looking at the stuff. There’s no requirement whatsoever. All materials are up for debate, and in fact I should probably set up some system by which people of the community can somehow veto something up there that they don’t think is representative of current scientific view, and so that something that is representative of the current scientific view and is a sort of requirement for basic science literacy can be put up, regardless of my own views. Not all sources are equal, and in science, not all views are equal, as ‘dogmatic’ as that may sound.

This isn’t about agreeing with the current scientific stance, it’s merely about understanding what it is. I don’t think that that’s dogmatic, I think it’s essential for sensible conversation on matters of science. Everything is open for discussion, though, and hopefully this ‘knowledge base’ idea won’t end up being limited by my own views. For the moment, it is, and I’d like to work on rectifying that soon.

[edit after seeing above post]

No, the knowledge base thread won’t be open to anyone. I will try to set up a system by which it’s not limited to my views only, but it will be an announcement that remains at the top of the Science forum, and whatever system I set up, I want to make sure that:
(a) the content is of the highest quality it can be
(b) the views represented are representative of the current state of science
(c) the material is freely available online

and there may be a few other standards I haven’t thought of while making this post.

So, for perfect clarity: I agree that it shouldn’t be down to my views only, but it should meet at least requirements A, B, and C, and as such it will not be open to everyone, but everyone is free to suggest things they’d like to see on it, argue for things they’d like to see on it, or take off it, and in the (hopefully near) future there will be a system by which I will not be the sole final arbiter of what goes on it. Leaving it open to everyone will trivialize it, and the standards a b and c will soon be lost. I don’t want that.

The Gould links meet your a, b, and c. LessWrong might not.

Just to corroborate it – I didn’t want to dismiss it based on that alone as well – I looked for outside confirmation.

John Tooby, for example, a pretty important figure in evolution, writes

But of course I won’t be linking to Lesswrong in that post either, I agree.