Archived
E-mail Discussion List
|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page While the summary in TD's 10/27 posting "more on science literacy" synthesizes much of the discussion so far on science literacy, it also raises some new questions about how people might respond to the philosophy of science integration. In particular, I foresee the potential for most people to be challenged, and eventually, if we take the approach to its natural conclusions, overwhelmed. Conversely, professional scientists may be underwhelmed by the implications of science integration.>In answer to the first question (Why is it important for the "average >person" to know about science?), the key themes so far seem to be: >.... (several salient points)... >It seems to me we should recognize >that we, with our thoughts, feelings, hopes, and goals, are part of this >universe described by science. Our ideas about how we want to develop as >people and as a society are intertwined with what we believe about how this >universe basically works. So we ought to be doing science and teaching it >with the conscious objective of building up and modifying our individual >"worldviews" of "how we fit into things." How far do you expect the average person to go with this? You are asking people to actively incorporate a scientific knowledge base into the formation of their world view. AD brought up the point that science integration is about motivating people to make their own connections: >A course taught with the goal of science integration would >be one in which motivation would proceed facts or skills whenever >possible, and the motivation would be as personal and direct as possible. >Students would be challenged to think about the implications of scientific >findings and the use of scientific processes in all areas of their lives and >in society as a whole. Stimulating people to rediscover/excercise their "natural" curiosity and develop their abilties to reason (through critical thinking / active reflection), has been a perennial goal of great teachers throughout history. While humanity has made progress in this area (through universal primary education and an increase in leisure time), it seems that the distractions of mass entertainment continue to lure people away from exercising their intellectual capacities. I agree entirely with TD's assertion that we should be " teaching (science) with the conscious objective of building up and modifying our individual "worldviews" of "how we fit into things," but let us look at the possible responses of people to this approach and some new questions that arise out of interacting with different types of students: Possible responses: (1) Unquestioning acceptance: No real problem, unless such a person chooses to simply repeat mantras instead of thinking independently. A good teacher will require intellectual activity/ growth of students and try to prevent the shallow type (1) response from becoming a type (3) response. (2) Questioning acceptance: This is the ideal response, I think. (3) Apathy: This is a big problem in schools today, but teachers that incorporate the idea of science integration will probably more effective in altering this response than with other more traditional approaches to teaching. In most cultures, articles of faith are defined, memorized, acted upon, and not frequently explored. How will science integration overcome this "activation barrier" when so many other great philosophies have fallen short? Can science integration find a way to make this habit of mind (i.e. critical relfection) more accessible and palatable to everyone? (4) Quarrelsome unacceptance: problematic: First, how can one depersonalize the discussion about how we make sense of the universe? By asking people to consider what science can offer to help them understand "how we fit into things", you are asking them to open up and expose their most central beliefs about how the world/universe works. That is a scary proposition, and I do not think most people naturally go there. When confronted with scientific evidence that contradicts a person's personal experience, that person must choose what and who they will believe. Practically speaking science integration asks people to believe more in the descriptions of reality presented by scientists (whom they do not know) than those which come to them through other channels, organized or not. Some people are likely to feel (somewhat) under attack. So, how can we motivate quarrlesome unaccepting individuals to accept the "scientific truth" of phenomena that cannot be explored experimentally in a class? At some point, science teachers have to ask students to extrapolate their experience of testing the validity of of scientific descriptions of natural phenomena to those not explored (e.g. radiocarbon dating of fossils, evolution of new "species" of plants and animals, the quantum mechanical nature of atoms, the relationships of Einstein's relativity). I don't think that the (highly technical) descriptions that are going to more fully explain our place in the universe will ever be tested by the large majority of individuals. They will either be accepted on faith in the scientific enterprise or rejected because of more comforting/more intelligble/less challenging alternatives. (5) Unquestioning unacceptance: This may be problematic only in required classes where they may disrupt the class in various ways. Can these people be reached / transformed ? I think so, but it requires a more than a little tact and subtlety. So, in the classroom science integration can be effective if we find pragmatic answers to the above questions. Where will that lead us? I think that science integration will move humanity toward a more meaningful engagement with reality/the universe, but I worry about our capacity to overdo things. It seems to me that people tend to lose sight of the "big picture" of what is important in a society. This statement is even more true the larger the context, whether it be the international community, or the even larger stellar and interstellar universe. If SII stimulates people to look beyond their own lives into more profound depths, could we overshoot and make people value life and useful human values less? Looking up and the stars and marvelling at the wonder of it all makes me feel better about life and more willing to tackle life's challenges. Are there any pessimists out there that respond differently? The response of Camus was to tell people to choose arbitrarily, to make whatever absurdities one wishes. To me it seems that finding a meaningful scale is important for people. We may be one of a million inhabitable planets, but for now we must live on this one, so let us take a closer look at what we "should be" and "should be doing" on a human scale. While I don't think most people will become alienated by contemplating the universe, I offer this one anecdote: Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" came out concurrently with an epidemic of recreational drug use and self-serving "greed is good" ideology amongst the middle and upper classes. Was this just a coincidence? Lastly, I want to put forth the idea that scientists themselves are likely to be underwhelmed by science integration. Can we "do" science so as to affect our world views? Most of what scientists investigate on a daily basis are minutia, generally related to practical problems and sometimes not. AD said that courses for science majors probably would not be affected much by science integration. I would agree and say that the day to day business of research will not change either. I think most scientists start out motivated by the kind of connections which SII wants to stimulate people to creat for themselves. I know many who still take time to read outside of their field to experience the wonder of new knowledge about the universe which other scientists are creating/discovering. I think that science integration will stimulate more people to enjoy that sense of wonder and to more generally accept/integrate new scientific knowledge into their lives. But I suspect that most scientists who are will simply respond, "Well doesn't everyone do that?"Dr. Brian McSpadden Gardener USDA-ARS Root Disease and Biological Control Unit Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164 (509) 335 1116 (509) 335 7674 FAX |
