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]