From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 23:57:17 EDT
Shuan,
As one who taught philosophy for years, I think that it would be
difficult to get much across in a high school class. The kind of thinking
required seems to require more maturity. However, a beginning science
course could include a few basic facts: (1) that the doing of science
requires some nonscientific assumptions; (2) that science provides the
best available answers to certain types of problems, but current answers
are subject to revision, for they may change with new information; (3)
that for any set of data, there are an infinite number of theories
possible. This last requires consideration not only of the narrow model,
but also the ancillary assumptions. Recognition of these matters will
exclude scientism.
The third point is one that is seldom recognized. It is not just
theoretical. After Einstein presented his relativity theories, Whitehead
produced one based on Euclidean geometry rather than Riemannian. The two
were shown to be identical on the four matters then recognized as
relevant by Eddington. Later observations killed Whitehead's. Later Dicke
and Brans (?) produced an alternative that challenged Einstein on some
points. In time, Einstein was shown to be correct. There are also other
alternatives whose authors I don't recall. Of course, given the
complexity of relativity theory, I don't anticipate a spate of them.
Dave
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:07:01 -0400 "Shuan Rose" <shuanr@boo.net> writes:
>
> Seeking a middle ground here...
> Sounds like both of you agree that philosophy, or philosophy of
> science
> should be taught in public schools, maybe with evolution as a
> specific
> topic. Should this be done? Could high school students be able to
> understand
> and appreciate this?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 00:14:15 EDT