Loren's post of 7th May had a very cautious approach to the inclusion
of philosophy in science education. It seems to me this stems from
an adoption of the "two book approach" to knowledge. Science is
deemed autonomous and objective - a sure path to discovering reality.
It is my view that this view of science is so widespread
and so controversial that it is vital to make some attempt to address
this in educational programmes.
This area is closely related to the place of presuppositions in human
cognisance of the world. We all bring our presuppositions - whether
we are conscious of it or not. Scientists are no exception - I am
more confident in those scientists who have an awareness of
their presuppositions than in those who show no indication of where
they are "coming from".
But how can this be part of school-based education? The objection
can be made that these areas are too demanding for such young minds.
Tim Ikeda made some suggestions as to what might be reasonably
included, and I would like to pick up on these:
TI> Instead, I think there are examples
> of other competing scientific models for students to investigate which
> are less religious-oriented and less likely to draw heated debate. For
> geology, one could examine the emergence of plate tectonics. In physics
> and astronomy, one could compare the problems of an earth-centered solar
> system vs. a heliocentric one. In biology, students could read about
> how nucleic acids came to be recognized as carriers of inheritance.
1. The emergence of plate tectonics. For years there had been an
intellectual struggle regarding the "dynamic earth" and "mobility".
The problem was that the rocks suggested a far more dynamic history
of the earth than the theoretical models allowed. These theoretical
models were deeply influenced by Lyell's version of uniformitarianism
- which was not very good at bringing dynamic behaviour into earth
history. The "fixist" - "mobilist" controversies were presupposition
dependent.
2. Geocentrism - heliocentrism. This change is of such importance in
the history of ideas that every educated person ought to have an
understanding of it. However, the "science vs religion"
interpretation is a myth. The conflict was between Aristotelian
philosophy (which had been adopted by the Church via Aquinas) and an
emerging non-deductive philosophy which led to the scientific
revolution. Here, presuppositions are very prominent.
3. Nucleic acids as carriers of inheritance. Genetics is so
important today that it can justifiably be part of general education.
The problem I see here is that there is a very vocal group of
biologists who say that DNA carries ALL the information. They are
extreme reductionists in philosophy - as their central thesis has
never been proved. Biology provides as many examples of
presuppositional thinking as any other discipline.
Bill Hamilton wrote:
"I see no reason for keeping philosophical arguments out of the
science curriculum, and many for including them. However, philosophy
should be clearly labelled as philosophy. I would go so far as to
say that I'd favor requiring all degree candidates in science fields
to take a sequence of courses in philosophy of science."
The problem here, Bill, is that there are no distinct compartments
labelled "science" and "philosophy". Rather, philosophy provides the
foundations on which science is built. However, I fully endorse
your view that these issues are part of any good science education.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***