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



> Eric responds:
>
> It's pretty easy to accept what you say: that "different ways of
> knowing" are not "equal."  That is explicit in the phrase.  I think
> that you will find people resistant to a value-laden vocabulary, if
> what you are suggesting is that science is a superior way of
> understanding the world in all contexts.  In the old formulation,
> science can tell us how things happen, but not why.  And given the
> environmental degradation that is the direct result of unfettered
> technology, an infusion of the "why" part of the question seems
> timely and important.   For example, will science give us the answer
> to whether cloning animals is good?  Cloning humans?  Will it answer
> the debate about the monocultural green revolution vs diverse seed
> stock?  Will it help to reduce terrorism and expand tolerance?  I
> don't see how.
>
> Does science or the scientific method or the culture of science imply
> any kind of morality other than honesty?  Does it suggest how or why
> rich countries might forego some of our privileges to diminish our
> impact on the environment?
>
> All that said, I agree that science museums should debunk, or at
> least not promote, pseudoscience, which I guess is your original point.
>
> Eric Siegel
> New York Hall of Science
> [log in to unmask]
> (718) 699-0005 x 317
>
> ***********************************************************************
> 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]