I promised Andrew an article and instead here I am. So be it.
You are always the most fun to answer because of your glorious self-righteous evaluation of the quality of your education and the brilliance of your mind. (The ad hominem allows me a bit of latitude.*)
A short digression: Annibale Verzumo relates the story of a broad-minded physicist tells that the public tend to see scientists as "high priests", but they may be "indifferent to if not altogether bores ... by science". He quotes other scientists. One of them says that a strange public image of the scientist partly evolved out of the ideas about PREHISTORIC wizards "who had the power to release pestilence and other ills". (Their modern brothers are bent to follow their steps). Doctor Faust of the 16th century boasted of demon power. The unfair label of "mad scientist" had grown in the 18th century when Jules Verne wrote of an insane chemist who invented a devastating explosive and blew up an island; it was just like the atom bomb of today.
The 18th century is not irrelevant to this reply.
The point is, alchemy is NOT chemistry and it would be inappropriate to teach in our schools today.
First any one foolish enough to defend imaginary standards for what is 'taught in our schools today' is delusional. Second, how do you know about alchemy? What do you know about alchemy? How much and what did Newton know about alchemy, and why would the subject be anymore inappropriate a study than the supposed science of psychology? There is no appreciable difference between astrology and psychology except to what they attribute cause.
The same is true of astrology vs astronomy, magic vs physics, phenology vs neuroscience
I thought I made the case in my last post that phrenology made some significant contributions to what you would prefer to call neuroscience.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
Supposing you meant our "descendants", [I’ve already corrected it.] of course we don't expect science to be taught the same way to future students as today's students but to incorporate everything discovered from now until then.
That won’t change the ‘way’ it will be taught, except that the amount of useless information may be decreased lightening the students load.
We don't think of Newton or Maxwell or Galileo as "rubbish" nor will future scientists think of todays science as rubbish. They will still think of "astrology" and "creationism" as rubbish however. Except of course for the Robert Davison's of the future. *
Perhaps you have heard this anecdote about Sir Francis Bacon. Sitting in his room above the tavern one evening the thought occurred to him, "I have written on philosophy, science and mathematics. Now I should also take on history." As he set pen to paper, he glanced out his window and observed a commotion outside. He went downstairs to the tavern, where he heard no less than six highly divergent versions of what had occurred. Sir Francis went back upstairs and tore up what he had written, and never again considered writing a book on history.
When you speak of the history of Science the examples you conveniently ignore are the embarassing ones.
In the 18th century, for example, astronomers did not believe in meteorites. Museums all over Europe threw out their precious meteorite specimens as humiliating reminders of superstitious mythology. Why? Because, as Antoine Lavoisier, father of modern chemistry declared, "Stones don"t fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky!" Period. End of discussion. In 1772, a committee, of whom Lavoisier was a member, was appointed by the French Academy, to investigate a report that a stone had fallen from the sky at Luce, France. Lavoisier analyzed the stone of Luce. The exclusionists' explanation at that time was that stones do not fall from the sky: that luminous objects may seem to fall, and that hot stones may be picked up where a luminous object seemingly had landed -- only lightning striking a stone, heating, even melting it.1
The stone of Luce showed signs of fusion. Lavoisier's analysis "absolutely proved" that this stone had not fallen: that it had been struck by lightning. So, authoritatively, falling stones were damned. The stock means of exclusion remained the explanation of lightning that was seen to strike something -- that had been upon the ground in the first place.
Newton spent a great deal more time studying alchemy and astrology than he did physics. Why, I leave to you to explain and also provide an explanation for the fact that the man was a paranoid delusional accustomed to hearing voices. Perhaps they were visitors from the future whispering about apples.
Galileo brought nothing new to anything. He did not invent the telescope and 'his' theory about the of the earth rotating around the sun was, to be polite, ‘borrowed’ from Copernicus. If it weren’t for some fanatical political Pope no one would have heard of him.
One of Maxwell's most important achievements was his extension and mathematical formulation of Michael Faraday's theories of electricity and magnetic lines of force. His paper On Faraday's lines of force was read to the Cambridge Philosophical Society in two parts, 1855 and 1856. Maxwell showed that a few relatively simple mathematical equations could express the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields and their interrelation. 20 year later, when Maxwell used Faraday's field theory to assume that light was an Electromagnetic Wave, and then correctly deduced the finite velocity of light, it was a powerful logical argument for the existence of the electromagnetic force field, and that light was a continuous wave like change in the field (electromagnetic radiation) that propagated with the velocity of light c through the ether. But as Einstein noted, by 1900, when it was discovered that light energy was emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts and thus 'particle' like (photons) the assumption that light was a continuous electromagnetic wave failed.
“all arguments should have at least one counter argument as precaution against complacency or orthodoxy”
Do they always have to be archaic arguments?
Not at all, I made that quite clear in my previous posts. I remember mentioning Hannes Alfen. Your difficulty appears to be that you tend to create stereotypes, ascribing motivations to other that fit your paradyme but do not exist in fact. You should stop it, it betrays a lazy mind. In light of what I just said, I am convinced you think I am a creationist. I am not. Nor, I'm pretty sure would we agree on what ID was all about. I don't believe it has anything todo with the creation of the universe, or animal life on the planet(even creationists believe in natural selection); I believe it concerns itself solely with the evolution of man which when compared to the evolution of the fauna on this planet appears to be have been amazingly rapid.
Try coming up with something new. Discarded ideas and ideas based on superstition are discarded for very good reasons. It's called progress and enlightenment.
"Try something new" is odd advice coming from you, and "progress and enlightenment" can be synonyms for conformity and dogma.
I deny your accusation that I cling to superstition and discarded ideas, and reject your suggestion that I stop asking questions to pursue conventional, facile explanations that don't quite fit. You're the ugly step sister in this saga.
1- Lazarus Fletcher. An Introduction to the Study of Meteorites. 11th ed. London: British Museum Trustees, 1914, 19-20. Antoine Lavoisier. "Rapport sur une pierre qu'on prétend ètre tombée du cil pendant un orage." 6 vols. Oeuvres de Lavoisier. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1868, v. 4, 40-5.