Archived
E-mail Discussion List
|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page Next in threadSeveral important issues are emerging from the recent discussion, which has turned more specifically to the relevance (or not) of science to people'sworldviews and sense of place in the universe . I think we'll want to return to these central issues, so I'll try to point out and comment on some of them. None of what I'm saying here is meant to be complete - I'm just suggesting ideas for us to consider: 1) First, on the relevance of science to how we want to develop as people and as a society (Eric's questions): I guess my sense of this is that science is important for building up an overall context for our existence. It's not any particular fact (e.g. that we're formed from elements that were once in stars) - it's the overall picture that, I think, does make a big difference, even for someone who knows almost nothing of the science. It's knowing something about the process and stages that the universe has gone through, that are part of our past and make us what we are now. Things get their meaning from context, right? What makes a particular piece of physics research significant is the context that it's embedded in. Your work matters because it helps answer questions generated by earlier research, and it generates new questions that future work will address. Without the context of the field, you wouldn't know what your work meant. I'd say the same is true for knowing the process the universe has gone through to produce consciousness. An awareness of that really does matter for how you live. And I think most people do have some conception in their minds of this context, whether or not they've ever used anything from science in formulating their ideas (or whether they're even aware that it "came from" anywhere at all). 2) Clearly, there are significant obstacles to integrating science into more people's lives, in the way that we're talking about. If these obstacles weren't there, we probably would not see a problem, and wouldn't be having these discussions at all. A major topic for our attention is to identify the obstacles clearly, and work on how to "package" science (or insights/ideas from science) into a form that people CAN use. I think Brian has identified perhaps *the* major obstacle, in pointing out that most people may be overwhelmed by the idea of incorporating science into their worldviews. Certainly we can't just dump a bunch of scientific information on people and expect them to see how it relates to their worldviews and their notion of how they fit in to the universe. I think a key challenge is to figure out what the key concepts really are (Evolution? The scale and age of the universe? ... What do we think are the "big ideas" of science that affect one's sense of context and meaning?) and then to figure out how to package the concepts for different audiences. (It would also be nice to incorporate something about the methods of science into the "package", since we want people to be able to evaluate new information as it comes along – I don't think we want to presume that we're anywhere close to the final word on what the universe is really like!) There are many different ways of doing this "packaging." At one level, many scientists could benefit from a broader perspective, outside of their own field - this could still be very "technical," just with a different emphasis and broader perspective on what the insights of science mean to them. At a different level, many people might benefit from simply hearing "stories" which make use of the knowledge about the universe we have gained through science (much like the mythologies that most cultures have told throughout history, to ground their lives in a bigger context). In this form, the ideas would not need to overwhelm people - cultures told such stories long before science and probably long before writing. If we package the information in this way, it might no longer be recognizable purely as "science," but the science would have played an important role in constructing the story. A good example of this kind of storytelling, I think, is provided by Brian Swimme and Larry Edwards and others in the Epic of Evolution Society - their listserv archives can be accessed at http://listserv.ocis.temple.edu/archives/cosmogen.html (Maybe Larry can add more perspective on this?) 3) This leads me to another one of Eric's key points: To what extent is this (or will it be perceived as) an attack on people's religious views? I guess my short answer is that I'm sure some people will see it as an attack on their religious views. Certainly we should tread carefully here - but I think most people who would be interested in this kind of thing at all are not afraid to question their beliefs. As long we're not saying we have "the answer," and are only offering tools and insights for people to use as they see fit, I don't think it's a problem. There's been some very good discussion about this issue on the Epic of Evolution listserv (see link above) in recent months, centered on the controversy over the Kansas State Board of Education decision to de-emphasize evolution in their science standards. Certainly potential conflict with religion will be a recurring issue, and I think we cannot and should not avoid it. If we want people to see science as relevant, to see it as a part of their world and not some detached and irrelevant abstract world, then we do potentially bring it into conflict with "their most central beliefs about how the world/universe works." That's both the benefit and the danger of making it relevant, and I don't think we can have the benefit without the danger. 4) In thinking about whether it's reasonable for science to be an important tool for people to use in constructing their "worldviews," perhaps we should back up. Instead of just asking why the "average person" should know about science, maybe we should ask, "Why do we need science at all?" What is it about the reality of the universe we live in that prompted some of our ancestors to invent the field and the method of inquiry that we now call science? An obviously simplistic answer, but a good start, is that we recognized that we can believe things that are not actually true. Somehow we have both an internal, "model-building" world in our minds, and a "reality" out there, and the two often don't match. We needed a way to sort out which of the beliefs in our minds matched with what was "out there." I once heard science defined as "choosing what works over what doesn't work." Again, perhaps overly simplistic, but I think it captures the essence of it pretty well. I suppose if we lived in a universe where the beliefs we held automatically matched with reality, then we wouldn't need science. Anyway, given that we do live in this kind of universe, it seems like science has to be an important tool for making sense out of our place in it. Todd |
