ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************
I read Stephen's comment a few days ago, and though I still don't know
how to respond, sometimes you just have to raise your hand and make fool
of yourself.
Re: ... after a century in which classical Positivist methods failed to
provide reducable results in a number of important disciplines. -- Such
as? Does scientific enquiry ever really end in failure? ...
Re: Although remarkable and beautiful science (albeit, complex and
sometimes impossible to understand) resulted from the studies of
photons, quantum mechanics, wholeness, strings, chaos, complexity, etc.,
it also resulted in a shift in what science means. -- Fundamentally,
really?...
Re: Science, as THE answer to the big questions replaced religion
(largely by its methods) and now, as some of our successes backfire on
is in the form of destructive technologies, overpopulation, and climate
change, the honeymoon is over.
-- Hardly a technology has ever been developed that did not have
destructive potential for the clever to use to advantage or the fool to
use to disadvantage. If the reference is to WMDs, then whether the
technology is good or bad depends on whether you're the one who wants it
and is prepared to use it or, uh, everybody else, I suppose.
-- Overpopulation is, of course, comprised of phenomena that science
examines and begs for technologies (e.g., medicine, agriculture) to
solve problems. On the other hand, one of my biology professors once
commented that overpopulation has never been permanent and has always
been self-correcting.
-- Humans have been adjusting to natural climate change and changing our
environment (on purpose or not) since long before there was any concept
of science.
Charles Stout, Ph.D.
Media Arts Manager
Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum
The views and representations stated in this e-mail are the
individual's. They do not bind the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum or its
Board, staff or volunteers, and they do not necessarily reflect the
Museum's institutionally-held viewpoints, opinions or policies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Informal Science Education Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Uzzo
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: different ways of knowing
ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology
Centers Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
institutions.
************************************************************************
*****
With all our discussions about the scope of science and what it can and
can't solve and what should be considered part of the epistemology of
science or not, we sometimes fail to recognize that science is changing,
for bad or good. The science of 2006 is not the science of 1906. There
is a whole field of study which looks at this called the Philosophy of
Science.
One of the most concise and informative definitions I have found is in
the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
This sounds a little scary in an age of creationism and pseudoscience,
but is particularly salient after a century in which classical
Positivist methods failed to provide reducable results in a number of
important disciplines. Although remarkable and beautiful science
(albeit, complex and sometimes impossible to understand) resulted from
the studies of photons, quantum mechanics, wholeness, strings, chaos,
complexity, etc., it also resulted in a shift in what science means.
What science meant to Rene Descartes and even D'arcy Thompson is not
what it means to us. I believe that science is struggling for a new
identity which makes room for twentieth century science as not just an
add on to Classical Western science, but part of its foundation. This is
why there are so many questions being asked about how everything else
fits into it. Science, as THE answer to the big questions replaced
religion (largely by its methods) and now, as some of our successes
backfire on is in the form of destructive technologies, overpopulation,
and climate change, the honeymoon is over. Both Kuhn and McLuhan
predicted this. It is our job as science educators to help people make
sense of it. The alternative is that science is relegated to the status
of just another world view amongst the carnival sideshows of
pseudoscience, spiritual science, creationist science, faith-based
pseudo-analytical systems, or just simplistic and non-analytical
thinking in general. Science that sticks to obsolete ways of thinking is
no better than religion which does the same thing.
Amanda Chesworth wrote:
> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology
> Centers Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and
> related institutions.
>
************************************************************************
*****
>
> Great reply Eric, thanks.
>
> What do you mean by "contexts" of understanding the world? Could you
> give me a couple of examples?
>
> I agree that science won't provide knowledge on issues of morality or
> in deciding whether a particular technology is "good" or "bad" but I
> do believe the best tools we have in exploring these issues are those
> inherent within the larger toolbox of science. Inquiry, observation,
> skepticism in particular. Testing and predicting the results of
> multiple hypotheses/solutions/decisions being another. I also think
> trial and error and the tentative nature of knowledge are useful
> guides. The information we glean through applying these tools can then
> help us in our debates, problem-solving and decision-making.
>
> With regard to the use of technology, science would indeed be a
> reliable guide. Take Einstein's cautionary letter to the US President
> about the use of the atomic bomb. We could predict the damage through
> science and recommend how the technology should be used. Whether an
> individual/nation follows the recommendations has nothing to do with
> science. We may be right in assuming that there is a likelihood of a
> particular technology being abused but it wasn't just the atomic bomb
> that came out of this particular scientific discovery - we also
> developed atomic energy and enhanced our knowledge in several
> disciplines, thereby allowing us to understand our world that much
> more. This shows that defining technology as good or bad doesn't make
> sense and is impossible to answer. Society may define what's good and
> bad and then we could perhaps determine whether a specific use of the
> technology is bad and place limits. How should society decide what's
> good and bad though? See above on what I consider the best tools in
> making these sorts of decisions. What other method exists?
>
> Though it may have come too late, we have also employed science to
> show how fossil fuels can have a long-term impact on our atmosphere
> and place the biosphere at risk. With this knowledge we have placed
> limits on the use of fossil fuels and have discovered alternatives
> that aren't as damaging.
>
> We could also say that the understanding that has been a result of
> scientific discovery does have some impact on moral issues or problems
> we have encountered within society, such as tolerance. Science has
> shown that the human species likely originated in Africa and that
> differences such as skin color are rather superficial compared to the
> similarities between humans. I believe this has helped diminish racism
> and promote tolerance.
>
> Again though, I'm not saying that science has the answers but instead,
> the tools of science are our best guides. I can't think of any
> alternative.. am I missing something?
>
> Amanda
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen Miles Uzzo
Director of Technology
New York Hall of Science
47-01 111th Street
Flushing Meadows Corona Park
New York 11368 U.S.A.
v. +1.718.699.0005 x377
f. +1.718.699.1341
http://www.nyscience.org
***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at
http://www.astc.org. To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L
list, send the message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
|
