From: pearson@panam1.panam.edu <pearson@panam1.panam.edu>
>By far, the most puzzling aspect to me of the entire Kansas curriculum
>proposal was this change from "natural explanations" to "logical
>explanations." Anyone who thinks scientific explanation involves, at some
>point, observation and experiment -- experiential contact with the
>external world -- has to be aghast at this shift. On the other hand, if
>someone believes scientific explanation consists in the manipulation of
>the syntactical relations between formal symbols, they are likely to be
>pleased with the change in wording. Logic has no empirical content
>whatsoever; I can provide all sorts of logically valid accounts that are
>utterly false when applied to the natural world. Logic is a kind of
>language game -- a set of rules for playing with abstract symbols (and
>yes, I have to teach the stuff each semester). Is this really what science
>does? Not even in Kansas, I hope.
While I quite agree with you about the inappropriateness of the word
"logical" in this context, I don't feel happy with the word "natural"
either. This word is far too ill-defined, and opens the door for
anti-science apologists like Phillip Johnson to attack mainstream science on
the grounds that it automatically excludes the possibility of a divine
explanation. I would prefer the word "rational".
By the way, here's the full text of the paragraph in question:
"Science is the human activity of seeking logical [natural] explanations for
what we observe in the
world around us. Science does so through the use of observation,
experimentation, and logical argument
while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. In so
doing, science distinguishes
itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge.
Explanations based on myths,
personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or
authority may be personally
useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific. Scientific
explanations are built on observations,
hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the
natural world that can be used to
build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a
well-substantiated explanation of some
aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences,
and tested hypotheses.
Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria."
It's interesting that the BOE apparently didn't object to the second and
third use of the word "natural", as in "the natural world". Strictly, I
think the word "natural" is superfluous in this context.
For further deatils of what the Kansas science standards actually say
(before and after the Board's amendments), take a look at
http://www.kcfs.org/compare.html
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 10 2000 - 08:58:26 EDT