>I'm not at all convinced that philosophy (of science, especially) doesn't
>belong in the science classroom. While I'm not necessarily sympathetic
>with using DOT or Pandas in the classroom, I'm not at all ready to dismiss
>them because they are too philosophical. Discussing underlying
>philosophical systems may be more important in educating our general public
>than teaching them the "facts" of science. The "facts" are important for
>people going into advanced study in the sciences, but are just trivia for
>most people. Interestingly, when I teach my non-majors chemistry course at
>Calvin (admittedly not a public school), I spend over one-fourth of my time
>on philosophy and theology of science.
That is because (not only) students often desire to synthesize the
"facts" with meaning and purpose in their lives. You probably
experience this more often at Calvin because your students probably fit
a different profile in this regard. I agree that the facts are more
important in advanced study but nonetheless most of these folks too
still desire meaning. The evidence of that is what drives this
reflector! :-)
Paul Durham