Archived
E-mail Discussion List
|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page Hi Y'all,I have various thoughts on the past week's emails... Brian said: > The history and philosophy of science (e.g. we discuss a > bit about Galileo, Descartes, Lavosier, Watson and Crick) is > already taught in many courses, even in high school, but there > is not much emphasis place on it. Question: is history of science the same as philosophy? I suppose it can be related, but I believe often the history of science is not taught that way. At least, my experience was that the history of science I saw in my courses seemed very dry, and that later I was fortunate to find some good philosophically minded books on history of science. Todd wrote, as justification for being science-aware: > - Knowledge of science can change how we perceive the world, > and this perception impacts decisions we make in all areas > of life. I have never thought much about this until I read the SII's web page. I realize it's the big idea behind SII, although I'm still trying to understand it. More about this below:> It seems to me we should recognize that we, with our thoughts, > feelings, hopes, and goals, are part of this universe described > by science. Maybe. Then again, maybe alot of science is unimportant to "how we want to develop as people and as a society" (as Todd says). For example: biology depends on chemistry, chemistry depends on physics, but the biologists don't need to know quantum mechanics in order to understand their field. In some sense biology is disconnected from the underlying quantum mechanics; I'm sure you've all heard this sort of argument before. So, maybe our worldviews can be developed without any need to refer back to alot of science. The critical thinking aspect of science, though, that's certainly useful for developing a world view. Todd wrote: > We all are made of elements that once were in the cores of > stars; we all find that certain materials are necessary to > keep us warm or to keep us from being hungry; we all find > that certain kinds of vibrations in the air (called music) > can make us feel certain ways. I just don't see how this is important to someone developing a world view (well, maybe I do a little, I'm just putting this forth as an argument). People know about warmth, food, music, and don't need to understand them scientifically to understand their value. As for being made of elements from cores of stars, again, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be any more inspiring than "God made man in his own image." Brian wrote: > I think that science integration will move humanity toward > a more meaningful engagement with reality/the universe... Same question -- I'm just not sure what this is supposed to mean. Todd said that in teaching non-scientists: > I'd like them to have spent some time thinking about the > question of what things are made of, how finely you can break > up matter, and how in the world you go about discovering how > small the pieces are and what they look like. Sounds good. Sounds tricky to get science teachers able to teach this way: it definitely requires a good teacher to start such conversations with the students going. To be cynical, alot of students don't like to think (or rather, perhaps a lot of high school courses don't encourage thinking). Amanda: > 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. I think I would be helped if someone could give me an example of this. Critical thinking I understand, but "implications of scientific findings" I don't think I understand. Or, to paraphrase another part of Amanda's email, what sort of 'discoveries significantly affected our world view' in the past? Brian wrote: > (4) Quarrelsome unacceptance: problematic: > ....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. I think this is a huge problem. A lot of people see science as attacking religion (including many scientists). For someone with extreme beliefs, science probably does directly attack them (evolution being the prime example). All this talk of "worldviews" to me seems extremely suggestive of a conflict between a religious viewpoint and a scientific viewpoint. I assume that's not what you're all suggesting, but that is certainly one interpretation, moreover an interpretation that alot of people would read into our discussions. For example, Brian continued: > 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. Clearly a primary alternative source of information comes from religion. I can summarize with two questions: (1) to what extent is science integration going to be an attack on people's religious views; and (2) independent of the first question, to what extent is it going to be perceived that way? --Eric |
