From: Keith B Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Sat Aug 31 2002 - 12:34:02 EDT
>So, has anybody tried fighting to get a little
>philosophy of science into school board curricula?
>Why not?
The central core of the disputes over science education here in Kansas and
elsewhere have to do with understandings of the nature of science. The
earlier standards fight here is Kansas was largely focused on definitions
of science, the same is true in Ohio. A solid understanding of the
philosophy and methodologies of science is vital. I think that a
rudimentary introduction to the historical and philosophical issues of
science can be incorporated into secondary science curricula. Just
presenting scientific concepts in their appropriate histrical context can
help greatly.
The problem with the proposals being made by ID advocates and others is
that they serve to break down the limitations and boundaries of science as
a way of knowing. "Methodological naturalism" is one term that is used to
express the empirical nature of science and its restriction to explaining
observations by appeal to "natural" processes and forces. By seeking to
break down those boundaries, science is made to be synonomous with
"knowledge" or "logic." This not only destroys the distinction between
science and other ways of knowing, but also between science and
pseudoscience.
Science simply is not the only path to truth. Ironically, some ID
proponents want to make theological claims subject to scientific
verification and thus elevate science to the final arbitor of truth.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 13:38:47 EDT