Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[Open_Minded]

OM I think there is definitely a time for most everyone to experience a strangely humbling, yet empowering, awe and wonder at the mystery of all existence. And many of us somehow know intuitively that everything is interconnected and whole.

 

Some people want to go a step further and unravel these mysteries and thereby gain understanding. Some of these people want to gain explicit understandings and many of these people are scientists.

 

Some part of me thinks that you are actually accepting the premise that science is equal to reductionism. But I think we can have science without approaching organized natural systems from a reductionistic standpoint. I think relational biology does just this.

 

Hello Legion...

 

Do you remember way back at the beginning of our discussion - 21 pages ago - when you wrote the following?

 

OM I think our conversation is not likely to be very interesting or dramatic if we agree all the time.

 

Well - 21 pages later - we've had a wonderful discussion. And trust me, I do NOT believe science is equal to reductionism and like you I do believe we can have science without approaching organized natural systems from a reductionist standpoint. In fact that IS the premise for my topic. In fact in my original post I stated the following:

My reason for starting this discussion is simple, to show that the scientific community does not march lock-step behind the reductionist and scientific materialistic view of consciousness.

 

You bring up relational biology. Relational biology proves my premis that the scientific community does not march lock-step behind reductionist and scientific materialistic approaches. If you're interested in relational biology, you are probably familiar with Robert Rosen. From Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rosen

 

Relational biology

Rosen's work proposes a methodology he calls "relational analysis" which needs to be developed in addition to the current capability of reductionistic science. ("Relational" is a term he attributes to Nicolas Rashevsky.)

Rosen’s relational biology maintains that organisms, indeed all systems, have a distinct quality called "organization" which is not part of the language of reductionism

. It has to do with more than purely structural or material aspects. For example, organization includes all relations between material parts, relations between the effects of interactions of the material parts, and relations with time and environment, to name a few. Many people sum up this aspect of complex systems[4] by saying that "the whole is more than the sum of the parts". Relations between parts and between the effects of interactions must be considered as additional parts, in some sense.

Organization, Rosen says, must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system

. As he put it: "The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism and repair. Yet, you're still you-- with all your memories, your personality...

If science insists on chasing the particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely

," (as told to his daughter, Judith Rosen).

 

He goes very far in this direction claiming that when studying a complex system, we can "throw away the matter and study the organization" to learn essential things about an entire class of systems, in general. He supports this claim (actually it is a quote which he also attributes to Rashevsky) based on the fact that living organisms are a class of systems with an extremely wide range of material "ingredients", different structures, different habitats, different modes of living and reproducing, and yet we are somehow able to recognize them all as "living". In contrast, a study of the specific material details of any given organism, or even of a whole species, will only tell us about how that type of organism "does it". Such a study doesn't approach what is common to all living organisms, i.e.; life. Relational approaches in biology allow us to study organisms in ways that preserve the qualities we are trying to learn about.

 

[edit]

Quantum Biochemistry and Quantum Genetics

Rosen also questioned what he believed to be many aspects of mainstream interpretations of biochemistry and genetics.

He objects to the idea that functional aspects in biological systems can be investigated via a material focus

. One example: Rosen disputes that the functional capability of a biologically active protein can be investigated purely using the genetically encoded sequence of amino acids. This is because, he said, a protein must undergo a process of "folding" to attain its characteristic three-dimensional shape before it can become functionally active in the system. Yet, only the amino acid sequence is genetically coded. The mechanisms by which proteins fold are not completely known. He concluded, based on examples such as this, that phenotype cannot always be directly attributed to genotype and that the chemically active aspect of a biologically active protein relies on more than the sequence of amino acids, from which it was constructed: There must be other factors at work.

 

Legion - clearly Rosen is one scientist who does not "march lock-step behind the reductionist and scientific materialistic" approaches to science. And clearly you and I do not disagree all that much - although I'd say we've had a wonderful conversation.

 

I agree that science is likely due for a paradigm shift. But I don’t believe this shift will render science obsolete. In fact, I think the just opposite. I think new non-reductionist approaches will make many of our sciences much more powerful in their ability to explain and predict the natural world.

Again we agree... however I would go one step further and point out that science, philosophy, religion, any of the standard ways of exploring deep reality .... none of these approaches can ever grasp all of reality.....

 

I would also say that some people "get" this and others don't, some scientists "get" this and others don't. There are many scientists who feel all of reality can be boiled down (by reductionism and materialism) to a clock-work universe. I believe that mindset will eventually die and that we will indeed see a paradigm shift.

 

And I think you touch on a good point here. New ways of observing. I think if we are to understand things in a new light then we will have to observe differently. Not only that, I think we will also have to reason differently.

 

That felt like a somewhat disjointed post. But I’ve been wanting to communicate much of that to you for a while now.

Again, you and I are in agreement.....

 

As to the point of "observe differently" and "reason differently"..... it is a good exercise to observe in more depth what Rodney and I were discussing earlier in the thread.

Karen Armstrong's approach and Dr. Schwartz's approach are two tools, both of which are valid. The difference between tearing down all definitions/metaphors of God and building up definitions/metaphors of God, is really pretty slim when you think about it. They are both tools which can lead to a deeper understanding of reality. But... we must be wise enough to know we are using pretty crude tools.

I would take it as far as saying there is no difference at all between tearing down and building up. Both are attempts at creating a conceptual framework to describe what is. Because of this I would also say that both views are equally invalid.

 

Language is the crudest tool of all. Sometimes language can fuel wisdom, but more often it fuels the mind that discriminates and separates.

 

At some point, after one has both built up and torn down all the different processes, organizations, names, metaphors, etc... It is goood to simply put aside all the language and ways of defining and simply "observe differently" and "reason differently".... This takes work because we humans are so attached to our processes of exploring that we've simply forgotten how to explore without process.

[Legion]

Ah yes OM, I think we have had a fantastic discussion here. And I cannot thank you enough for starting this thread. Even Hans was inclined to pin it. That’s saying something in my opinion.

 

Yes, I am becoming ever more familiar with Robert Rosen’s work by the day. And I proudly own several of his books, some of which are difficult to obtain. Fundamentals of Measurement, Optimality Principles in Biology, Anticipatory Systems, Life Itself, and Essays on Life Itself all have a prominent place on my shelves.

 

But best of all, I am a friend to Judith Rosen. She has a most beautiful spirit in my opinion.

 

I was recently speaking with a scholar friend of mine. And he seemed to suggest that anything which addressed the nature of causality itself, and our relation to it, has indelible theological implications to it. I guess I can see what he means to some extent. In fact, I think causality never lies, it has no ego, it gives birth to all things, it is completely consistent and never contradicts itself. Slap a face on it and perhaps we damn near have God.

 

I completely agree with you that we will never fully grasp all of reality. I guess some could see this as cause for despair. But I see it as an acknowledgment that future generations will always have room to grow. This opportunity they will have strikes me as cause for hope.

[agnosticator]

I can see your point here Agnosticator. And I agree that using the word “faith” in any scientific discussion has the potential to confuse religious people. But consider this definition of faith from Wikipedia....

 

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

 

It seems to fit perfectly with how I now view causality. I can think of no philosophically ironclad proof for the idea that phenomena can entail other phenomena. But I have a confident trust in the truth of the idea. I think if I am careful to note that it is causality that I have faith in then this should minimize the confusion.

 

I agree with what you are pointing out. The reason I make the distinction is that "Faith" is a different type of belief or trust because it is based upon the supernatural. It's exactly the same as having Faith (not faith) in little fairies that live in the forest. Back in the early 20th century (somewhere around that time), there was a popular obsession with fairies.

 

No matter what believers say about their Faith, (like Paul S? who posted somewhere about Faith being based upon truth or facts) it is really based upon a belief in some supernatural fantasy, like the fairies. That's the "evidence" of the unseen. They may try to demonstrate it as coming from truth, but there is no evidence. The cart is before the horse. If Faith were based upon evidence, I would have remained a Christian.

[Antlerman]

Oh oh, OM just quoted from Robert Rosen!! I can see Legion running towards her now with beaming face and arms wide open! It's all so beautiful.

[Legion]

Oh oh, OM just quoted from Robert Rosen!! I can see Legion running towards her now with beaming face and arms wide open! It's all so beautiful.

If we weren't in the Coloseum I would have more to say to you. fathead

 

But yes, you have it about right Antlerman. I was very pleased to see that quote Open Minded posted. And yes, I sort of swelled with admiration for her.

[Antlerman]

I would also say that some people "get" this and others don't, some scientists "get" this and others don't. There are many scientists who feel all of reality can be boiled down (by reductionism and materialism) to a clock-work universe. I believe that mindset will eventually die and that we will indeed see a paradigm shift.

 

<snip>

 

At some point, after one has both built up and torn down all the different processes, organizations, names, metaphors, etc... It is goood to simply put aside all the language and ways of defining and simply "observe differently" and "reason differently".... This takes work because we humans are so attached to our processes of exploring that we've simply forgotten how to explore without process.

I'm trying in my mind to extend this to society as a whole. The religious model of the universe, where everything was blended under the umbrella of the mythic system (science, art, and morality) was superseded by the rise of rationality in the Enlightenment (which three areas subsequently broke apart into these disconnected areas, finally collapsing together over into the purview of the empirical sciences: material reductionism), which now stands as the 'model' of reality.

 

And as much as religions mythic model gave way to greater understanding in the Age of Enlightenment, so too in finding things such as what we're discussion, that scientists such as Rosen and other systems theorists, that the model of Reductionism is having to give way to something that unites the areas science, art, and morality (or the Objective, Subjective, and Inter-subjective) as fully participating realities in the Whole, rather than simply reducing and collapsing them into an aspect of the 'Objective'.

 

They are full realities, and each affecting the other; subjective affecting objective, inter-subjective affecting subjective, inter-subjective affecting objective, objective affecting subjective, and so on. And as we look inside the subjective, and look inside the cultural and their relations to the objective whole, we see interlocking systems of interiors and exteriors. As science begins to see that the explanatory power of their tools in only part of the picture, this is where I see that as society, as culture, and as individuals, I imagine something of a 'rational spiritual philosophy' becoming a guiding worldview.

 

It would be nothing resembling mythology, with gods pulling strings from the heavens, but evolving those aspects of the spiritual from those earlier stages of development to meet the evolved aspects of our rationality on an equal plane. This is very different than any religious system. It is the place where the individual (art), our inter-subjective reality (culture), and our objective reality (science and society) move together towards our future evolution.

[Open_Minded]

Ah yes OM, I think we have had a fantastic discussion here. And I cannot thank you enough for starting this thread. Even Hans was inclined to pin it. That’s saying something in my opinion.

This has been a wonderful discussion and I was very honored when Hans pinned the topic.

 

Yes, I am becoming ever more familiar with Robert Rosen’s work by the day. And I proudly own several of his books, some of which are difficult to obtain. Fundamentals of Measurement, Optimality Principles in Biology, Anticipatory Systems, Life Itself, and Essays on Life Itself all have a prominent place on my shelves.

I'll have to find some of those books. Life Itself has an interesting title.

 

But best of all, I am a friend to Judith Rosen. She has a most beautiful spirit in my opinion.

I was unaware of your connections and admiration to the Rosens. The world is indeed a small place.

 

I was recently speaking with a scholar friend of mine. And he seemed to suggest that anything which addressed the nature of causality itself, and our relation to it, has indelible theological implications to it. I guess I can see what he means to some extent. In fact, I think causality never lies, it has no ego, it gives birth to all things, it is completely consistent and never contradicts itself. Slap a face on it and perhaps we damn near have God.

How true....

 

As science begins to see that the explanatory power of their tools in only part of the picture, this is where I see that as society, as culture, and as individuals, I imagine something of a 'rational spiritual philosophy' becoming a guiding worldview.

I agree with you Antlerman, and I wonder how we will then teach sciences in the school systems.

 

Right now the reductionist-materialist model rules in the classroom.

 

Will we someday have philosophy of science classes??????

 

How will we teach our children that Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens?????

[Legion]

I'll have to find some of those books. Life Itself has an interesting title.

Life Itself was the first book of Rosen’s that I encountered Open Minded. I’ve had it with me beside the computer for much of this discussion. I would recommend it to almost anyone. But I warn you; it is a difficult read. And I know hyper-intelligent and knowledgeable people who have had difficulty with it. But Judith Rosen assures me that much can be gleaned from it, despite the fact that it is strewn throughout with mathematics.

 

Right now the reductionist-materialist model rules in the classroom.

 

Will we someday have philosophy of science classes??????

 

How will we teach our children that Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens?????

I know people who are currently engaged in making this a reality. But it looks like it’s going to be an uphill battle. When it is difficult to convince scientists in the field to stake their professional lives on a relational approach to science then it may be even more difficult to convince people that the same material should to be taught in the classrooms.

 

Here’s the conclusion at which I have arrived. If I want to promote this relational approach to science, then I must first understand it myself. And I am not convinced that I do understand it sufficiently. I have had the thought several times that a book aimed at a general audience with a title along the lines of “Complexity Made Simple” would find some traction in the market and would go some distance to promote a relational approach. Unfortunately my understanding is simply insufficient at this time to attempt this myself. But if and when I do grasp it, I will give serious consideration to writing such a book.

[Legion]

I just had another thought Open Minded. Though I’m not convinced that I sufficiently understand the relational approach to science, I can still try and diminish our confidence in reductionism.

 

“In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” — Bertrand Russell

 

I think it may be high time to point out that not all metaphors are fruitful, and that we should hang a question mark on the machine metaphor in biology.

[Open_Minded]

I know people who are currently engaged in making this a reality. But it looks like it’s going to be an uphill battle. When it is difficult to convince scientists in the field to stake their professional lives on a relational approach to science then it may be even more difficult to convince people that the same material should to be taught in the classrooms.

 

I do agree with your assessment, Legion.

 

But... here's the bigger picture. The current black/white approach to teaching science opens the doors to fundamentalist teachings on both sides.

 

Fundamentalist (black/white - no in between - rigid) reductionism/materialism rules the current science classroom.

 

In response - there are those (and I am NOT one of them) who push for Intelligent Design to be included in science curriculum. And they are getting their way, in school district after school district. They are making headway because lay people on school boards and in the community sense deeply that there is more to the story of our existence than that which is being taught through reductionist approaches.

 

Until a more pragmatic approach is the norm in science classrooms - extreme approaches (including Intelligent Design) will dominate our larger cultural discussions.

 

One should think - on a purely logical level - that scientists would at least encourage education about the philosophical debate going on within its own community.

 

Our education system professes a desire to raise critical thinkers. How truthful is it to teach children a time-honored scientific experimental process without giving them the truth about the rest of the story. The facts are that there is much debate WITHIN the scientific community itself, and that there always has been.

 

In addition - specifically - currently there is debate around all the things we've discussed in this thread. Not since Newton has there been so much scientific debate about the nature of our universe. We are living in a pivotal time for science. Not only are we debating the nature of our universe we are also debating things like consciousness and life itself. How honest is it to keep this internal scientific discussion from our children and from the general population?

 

And simple common sense tells us that a more pragmatic and honest approach to these things will (over time) void the literalist approaches of Intelligent Design advocates. Mystery will once again be given its rightful place in the discussion, in time literalism will fade to the background. Most Christians do NOT read the Bible literally, but they do sense that there is more to our existence than reductionism and materialism would have us believe. Most Christians latch onto Intelligent Design because it is the only alternative they are given. Give them the truth, a bit of pragmatism and honesty will go a long way.

[Open_Minded]

I just had another thought Open Minded. Though I’m not convinced that I sufficiently understand the relational approach to science, I can still try and diminish our confidence in reductionism.

 

“In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” — Bertrand Russell

 

I think it may be high time to point out that not all metaphors are fruitful, and that we should hang a question mark on the machine metaphor in biology.

 

You and I must have been posting at the same time.

 

I like your quote from Bertrand Russell

[Ouroboros]

Will we someday have philosophy of science classes??????

They do have them already, but they're in higher levels of Philosophy: http://www.lps.uci.edu/home/index.html

[Open_Minded]

Will we someday have philosophy of science classes??????

They do have them already, but they're in higher levels of Philosophy: http://www.lps.uci.edu/home/index.html

 

Hans - this is great - and it's a start. We have to start somewhere.

 

But, I personally would love to see age appropriate discussion of these matters at a high-school level. I even think it's possible to discuss these things with younger children.

 

As I said earlier, the Intelligent Design advocates are making real headway. And they are doing this in large part, because we don't give lay people any other option. It's either all reductionism/materialism or the literalism of the Bible - no in middle ground.

[Ouroboros]

Hans - this is great - and it's a start. We have to start somewhere.

I think they've had it for a while, and other universities as well.

 

But, I personally would love to see age appropriate discussion of these matters at a high-school level. I even think it's possible to discuss these things with younger children.

Absolutely.

 

I think there should be a bit more philosophy, logic, reasoning, and especially critical thinking on HS level, including study habits, techniques, and life skills. There's a lot of knowledge kids do not learn, which they should.

 

As I said earlier, the Intelligent Design advocates are making real headway. And they are doing this in large part, because we don't give lay people any other option. It's either all reductionism/materialism or the literalism of the Bible - no in middle ground.

Agree. Understanding the world and our place in it is a far more complex issue than it usually is presented.

 

---edit---

 

The only thing about the last quote is that I think science should be kept the way it is. The questions and search for the larger perspective would fall into other subjects. The idea of science is that it can be universally learned, tested, and applied. The questions about the larger perspective tends to be hard to learn--most people understand the things contradictory to others--and it doesn't really let itself be tested either. I think the larger questions should be dealt with in philosophy, (perhaps) some new form of theology, sociology, etc, i.e. the liberal arts of education. History and creative works also contribute, but I still don't think science is to be blamed or should be changed, since it would only delude and confuse what they're supposed to cover.

[Legion]

Fundamentalist (black/white - no in between - rigid) reductionism/materialism rules the current science classroom.

 

In response - there are those (and I am NOT one of them) who push for Intelligent Design to be included in science curriculum. And they are getting their way, in school district after school district. They are making headway because lay people on school boards and in the community sense deeply that there is more to the story of our existence than that which is being taught through reductionist approaches.

Yes Open Minded, I tend to agree with you once again. Many people intuitively sense that something is missing from the reductionist picture. In response, people seem to be casting about for alternatives. But many of the proposed alternatives look suspiciously like vitalism or worse. Some people seem to run backwards to embrace their religious myths.

 

One should think - on a purely logical level - that scientists would at least encourage education about the philosophical debate going on within its own community.

I’m not sure why things are this way. I was 30 years old before I encountered the deeper controversies and debates within the scientific community. I wish I had been aware of them 10 years earlier.

[Open_Minded]

The only thing about the last quote is that I think science should be kept the way it is. The questions and search for the larger perspective would fall into other subjects. The idea of science is that it can be universally learned, tested, and applied. The questions about the larger perspective tends to be hard to learn--most people understand the things contradictory to others--and it doesn't really let itself be tested either. I think the larger questions should be dealt with in philosophy, (perhaps) some new form of theology, sociology, etc, i.e. the liberal arts of education. History and creative works also contribute, but I still don't think science is to be blamed or should be changed, since it would only delude and confuse what they're supposed to cover.

 

Hans - In principal I agree with you. The empirical, experimental approach is necessary to science. Only when an experiment produces the same results time after time after time - does one have objective evidence to make assertions from.

 

But, the devil is in the details.

 

For instance.... In a science class (not philosophy of science) but a science class - a teacher should be able to have an honest discussion about what "non-local" means. And the larger implications of this reality.

 

For instance .... in a science classroom a teacher should have the freedom to discuss the bigger implications of any scientific research. Yes - facts are facts and accurate science is dependent upon empirical evidence. But it should be ok to say to students... the results of this type of rigourous testing have created a larger debate within the scientific community. Here are the different points of view.... what do you think???? That should be able to be done within a science classroom.

 

One should think - on a purely logical level - that scientists would at least encourage education about the philosophical debate going on within its own community.

I’m not sure why things are this way. I was 30 years old before I encountered the deeper controversies and debates within the scientific community. I wish I had been aware of them 10 years earlier.

 

I agree...I was in college when I first became aware of the internal philosophical discussions going on within the scientific community. I wish I'd known in highschool - I wish it had been part of the bigger scientific picture at an earlier date. As a parent I've tried to expose my children to the larger discussions, but they've not had much of it in highschool....

 

Maybe by the time my grandchildren are in middle-school and high-school.... One can hope.

[Ouroboros]

Hans - In principal I agree with you. The empirical, experimental approach is necessary to science. Only when an experiment produces the same results time after time after time - does one have objective evidence to make assertions from.

 

But, the devil is in the details.

 

For instance.... In a science class (not philosophy of science) but a science class - a teacher should be able to have an honest discussion about what "non-local" means. And the larger implications of this reality.

 

For instance .... in a science classroom a teacher should have the freedom to discuss the bigger implications of any scientific research. Yes - facts are facts and accurate science is dependent upon empirical evidence. But it should be ok to say to students... the results of this type of rigourous testing have created a larger debate within the scientific community. Here are the different points of view.... what do you think???? That should be able to be done within a science classroom.

I don't know. It's important to create clear boundaries in the different areas of learning. I'd rather prefer to introduce some new class instead. For instance, I had philosophy as a subject when I went to high-school, but I don't think kids have that here in USA. They have to wait until college. It could be a subject presented before they start diving into science. What I see is a subject which glues together many different factions. It brings in the different aspects of life and gives a whole picture. I'm not sure it would be enough to have one or two discussions in science class to really iron it out. At what stage in science and which science class should have these discussions? Biology? Astronomy? Physics? And since it touches sociology, psychology, art, and even theology, I think it should deserve its own class, a form of umbrella to understand all the other things.

 

Maybe by the time my grandchildren are in middle-school and high-school.... One can hope.

Unfortunately, the signs show the quality of education is sinking, not improving.

[Open_Minded]

I don't know. It's important to create clear boundaries in the different areas of learning. I'd rather prefer to introduce some new class instead. For instance, I had philosophy as a subject when I went to high-school, but I don't think kids have that here in USA. They have to wait until college. It could be a subject presented before they start diving into science. What I see is a subject which glues together many different factions. It brings in the different aspects of life and gives a whole picture. I'm not sure it would be enough to have one or two discussions in science class to really iron it out. At what stage in science and which science class should have these discussions? Biology? Astronomy? Physics? And since it touches sociology, psychology, art, and even theology, I think it should deserve its own class, a form of umbrella to understand all the other things.

 

Hans, I too think there should be a separate class that really delves into these things in depth. I really do.

 

But, the reason I feel a science teacher should have the freedom to one or two discussions within a science classroom - is more to giving the teacher freedom to connect concepts such as non-locality with life.

 

Children are required to take a certain amount of science. But, they may not ever take a philosophy of science course. If a teacher had the freedom to connect rigourous scientific experimental results with life, it would keep the science more interesting for a lot of students. Teachers try very hard, now to connect what is going on within a classroom with "real life". Why should it be any different with the philosophical implications of science?

 

Having taking a lot of the life sciences in college (my minor was environmental sciences) I remember always asking questions about what I was learning and why it was important in the bigger perspective. Giving science teachers permission to at least touch on these subjects, might spark the interest of at least some of the students to search deeper on their own time.

 

Maybe by the time my grandchildren are in middle-school and high-school.... One can hope.

Unfortunately, the signs show the quality of education is sinking, not improving.

Sad... but true.

 

However - I still hope. Just this past week the Governor of my state talked of extending our school year and other education innitatives. These things take time, but I do think America is waking up to the reality that we're not successfully competing in the area of education. And hopefully this will push us to do better.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

For instance .... in a science classroom a teacher should have the freedom to discuss the bigger implications of any scientific research. Yes - facts are facts and accurate science is dependent upon empirical evidence. But it should be ok to say to students... the results of this type of rigourous testing have created a larger debate within the scientific community. Here are the different points of view.... what do you think???? That should be able to be done within a science classroom.

 

 

 

The problem is that in America at least, "teach the controversy" usually means only anti-evolutionist fundamentalists can have a say and anyone else will get shot down. For me anyway, this is my biggest fear for something like that. Like I can just imagine some public high school in the south where the teacher and majority of the students are fundamentalist Christians who are interpreting the science according to their beliefs and "teaching the controversy" and even if the teacher says they won't force their beliefs on the minority atheist kids, the minority atheist kids still might feel afraid to express their opinion. So, what you end up having isn't really a debate but an extension of Baptist Sunday school which you know that fundamentalists will want to take advantage of. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind, just that's the kind of window of opportunity the fundamentalists are looking for to indoctrinate kids. That's why I think this would be better off in either a separate philosophy of science class like Hans suggested or wait until college where the rules of debate are a little more flexible.

[Open_Minded]

The problem is that in America at least, "teach the controversy" usually means only anti-evolutionist fundamentalists can have a say and anyone else will get shot down. For me anyway, this is my biggest fear for something like that. Like I can just imagine some public high school in the south where the teacher and majority of the students are fundamentalist Christians who are interpreting the science according to their beliefs and "teaching the controversy" and even if the teacher says they won't force their beliefs on the minority atheist kids, the minority atheist kids still might feel afraid to express their opinion. So, what you end up having isn't really a debate but an extension of Baptist Sunday school which you know that fundamentalists will want to take advantage of. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind, just that's the kind of window of opportunity the fundamentalists are looking for to indoctrinate kids. That's why I think this would be better off in either a separate philosophy of science class like Hans suggested or wait until college where the rules of debate are a little more flexible.

Well.... you're right I didn't have that in mind. I didn't have that in mind at all....

 

I must admit, I live in a pretty liberal area. So ....something such as you describe never occurred to me....

 

I do have one question... how would a conservative school board, school system and teacher treat a philosophy of science class such as Hans described? I'm asking in all sincerity since I've no experience dealing with conservative school systems????

 

Also... and I'm asking this very seriously because I just simply don't know. Don't high-school and middle-school science teachers have to have some kind of degree in sciences to teach? And if so... that leads me to ask.... how do you get a degree in science (of any kind) and still remain a literalist, fundamentalist????

 

As I said, my minor in college was in Environmental Sciences. I can't imagine getting through the kind of course work I had to do if I had been a literalist - it really is a puzzling thought.

 

I really am asking this in all sincerity - I'm not trying to make people angry. But... are there really a lot of fundamentalist, literalist science teachers in the more conservative areas (like the south)???

[Legion]

I do have one question... how would a conservative school board, school system and teacher treat a philosophy of science class such as Hans described?

I can only guess that many school boards would themselves receive an education if they examined many philosophy of science curriculums.

[Shyone]

I do have one question... how would a conservative school board, school system and teacher treat a philosophy of science class such as Hans described? I'm asking in all sincerity since I've no experience dealing with conservative school systems????

 

Also... and I'm asking this very seriously because I just simply don't know. Don't high-school and middle-school science teachers have to have some kind of degree in sciences to teach? And if so... that leads me to ask.... how do you get a degree in science (of any kind) and still remain a literalist, fundamentalist????

 

As I said, my minor in college was in Environmental Sciences. I can't imagine getting through the kind of course work I had to do if I had been a literalist - it really is a puzzling thought.

 

I really am asking this in all sincerity - I'm not trying to make people angry. But... are there really a lot of fundamentalist, literalist science teachers in the more conservative areas (like the south)???

I considered teaching, but went another direction. I'll try to answer the questions according to my knowledge of high school teachers and conservative school boards.

 

Many true conservative (fundamentalist) teachers chafe at the bit to teach what they believe (i.e. "know"), but are hampered by the school boards and they are not entirely ignorant of the law. For these teachers, given the freedom and opportunity to introduce religion and slant the discussion of philosophy towards religious beliefs, they would do so. Many schools, however, review the curriculum to see if there is inherent bias. Conservative school boards and administrators however may not see bias if the bias happens to be their own (e.g. Darwinism is evil). The conservative school boards and conservative teachers have the potential for a "perfect storm" of anti-science bias.

 

As for degrees, there is some "specialization" but in general teachers are expected to be able to teach a variety of subjects even though they may only teach the one they feel strongest in. The degree granted is usually something like "bachelor's degree in education." Hence, no degree in science although science is part of their college curriculum. It is possible to take these courses and learn what is "necessary" to pass the course. Heck, I could probably pass a theology course even though I don't believe in "theo."

 

How that religious bias may manifest is any one's guess. Subtle remarks may come in ("Yes clouds are condensed water vapor and cause rain, but God made water"). Or the teacher may have a more guided goal of showing that God is the cause of all weather, earthquakes, and so forth. Evolution just doesn't enter the class - they skip that chapter entirely (all too often).

[Open_Minded]

I considered teaching, but went another direction. I'll try to answer the questions according to my knowledge of high school teachers and conservative school boards.

 

Many true conservative (fundamentalist) teachers chafe at the bit to teach what they believe (i.e. "know"), but are hampered by the school boards and they are not entirely ignorant of the law. For these teachers, given the freedom and opportunity to introduce religion and slant the discussion of philosophy towards religious beliefs, they would do so. Many schools, however, review the curriculum to see if there is inherent bias. Conservative school boards and administrators however may not see bias if the bias happens to be their own (e.g. Darwinism is evil). The conservative school boards and conservative teachers have the potential for a "perfect storm" of anti-science bias.

In fairness - humans in general have problems seeing and acknowledging their own bias.

 

I got to wondering how widespread literalism is in the United States and found a Pew Research Forum demographics map. Statistically speaking...

 

As far as reading the Bible as the literal word of God – Americans divide up as follows

• 33% Word of God, literally true word for word
  
• 30% Word of God, but not literally true word for word/ unsure if literally true
  
• 28% of Americans believe the Bible is a Book written by men, not the word of God

 

58% of Americans do not feel that the Bible is the literal word of God. This is more in line with research that I've come across in the past. The vast majority of Americans (even those who self-identify as Christian) do not read the Bible literally. Evolution though is a mixed bag. I did a bit more looking around and found This Pew Research article. It's a mixed bag to be sure... but one paragraph did stand out when reading it.

 

A survey conducted by Fox News in 1999 found nearly identical majorities of people favoring the teaching of evolution and opposing its removal from the curriculum. In one version of the question, respondents were told that the Kansas State Board of Education adopted new standards that would remove evolution from the mandatory curriculum; a 57% majority of registered voters disagreed with the board's actions, while 33% agreed with the removal. The other version stated that "the National Academy of Sciences recommended that evolution be taught to all public school students as the most convincing theory for how human beings developed" and then asked if respondents agreed or disagreed that evolution should be taught in all public schools: 56% agreed with teaching evolution and 35% disagreed with it. Thus, despite the invocation of two very different kinds of authority on opposite sides of the issue, the public opinion result was the same.

 

What stood out for me was that....

• Fox news did the survey - they're known for their own conservative bias
  
• With both questions the majority of respondents showed preference FOR teaching evolution in the classroom, not exactly the results Fox News would hope for.

 

So... it's probably fair to say that most school boards in this country, and most communities want evolution taught in the science classroom.

 

As for degrees, there is some "specialization" but in general teachers are expected to be able to teach a variety of subjects even though they may only teach the one they feel strongest in. The degree granted is usually something like "bachelor's degree in education." Hence, no degree in science although science is part of their college curriculum. It is possible to take these courses and learn what is "necessary" to pass the course. Heck, I could probably pass a theology course even though I don't believe in "theo."

My eldest has a degree that allows her to teach history at a highschool level. But... her experience is different from what you describe. Her actual major was a history major. She majored in history with some kind of education emphasis. SO... she had to do all the education courses, child development, student teaching, etc... but her major was history. That's why I asked, I thought her experience was the norm in education - I guess not.

 

How that religious bias may manifest is any one's guess. Subtle remarks may come in ("Yes clouds are condensed water vapor and cause rain, but God made water"). Or the teacher may have a more guided goal of showing that God is the cause of all weather, earthquakes, and so forth. Evolution just doesn't enter the class - they skip that chapter entirely (all too often).

I'm not doubting this for one minute. Although we live in a pretty liberal area, I grew up in a more conservative state. So... I don't doubt what you are saying.

 

America is pretty diverse - as all the Pew Research shows. It was my experience (growing up in a Catholic School system) that evolution was accepted as standard Scientific theory and taught as such. It's been decades since I was in a Catholic school, but I can't imagine they've changed their views all that much. In addition, I minored in environmental sciences at a Lutheran University - again I got standard scientific theory regarding evolution. And in fact, it was at this University that I was first exposed to the philosophical debates going on within the scientific community. I think mainline churches are pretty accepting of standard science, they may teach that God has a role in the process of evolution, but they don't deny it, they don't teach creationism.

 

And yet... I've no doubt in more conservative areas of the country that teachers and school boards would use the internal scientific debates and twist those debates to their own ends.

 

I'm not sure what the larger solution is... but... I guess when it gets right down to it... the more information we can get out to young people the more open-minded they are as they grow and become adults. In principal I think we can all agree on this, the question is how to do this in such a way that children are receiving well-rounded curriculum.

 

As I said earlier, I live in a pretty liberal area. My children went to school with children from many different religions as well as children from Agnostic and Atheist backgrounds. However there were also children within the school who come out of a very conservative background. Like I said it is a pretty diverse school system. So.... I can honestly say the teachers in our school system would be able to have these kinds of discussions in a science classroom and all views would be present and accepted. My son self-identifies as Atheist, he's never been shy about speaking his opinion - not even in school.

 

He told me once about taking a class on mythology in his junior or senior year. During the mythology class they studied creation stories from different cultures. My son brought up the Genesis account of creation as a creation myth. His teacher allowed the discussion within limited boundaries - admitting to the entire class that Genesis could be viewed as a creation myth - but also acknowledging the limits they could go in discussion because many in our culture viewed Genesis literally. My son was upset that the conversation wasn't allowed to go longer, but also understood the touchiness of the issue. It's a mixed bag to be sure... it would have been nice if they could have pursued it in more depth and one can only imagine the poor teacher having to defray a legitimate discussion. However, it's a conversation happening in a classroom that would not have happened when I was in high-school.

 

One could only hope that all teachers had the wisdom to know how to handle such discussions with fairness and awareness to all points of view. Like most things in this county - and in the world - change will come over time. It will most-likely bubble up from a local community level and grow into a larger movement.

[Open_Minded]

I considered teaching, but went another direction. I'll try to answer the questions according to my knowledge of high school teachers and conservative school boards.

 

Many true conservative (fundamentalist) teachers chafe at the bit to teach what they believe (i.e. "know"), but are hampered by the school boards and they are not entirely ignorant of the law. For these teachers, given the freedom and opportunity to introduce religion and slant the discussion of philosophy towards religious beliefs, they would do so. Many schools, however, review the curriculum to see if there is inherent bias. Conservative school boards and administrators however may not see bias if the bias happens to be their own (e.g. Darwinism is evil). The conservative school boards and conservative teachers have the potential for a "perfect storm" of anti-science bias.

In fairness - humans in general have problems seeing and acknowledging their own bias.

 

I got to wondering how widespread literalism is in the United States and found a Pew Research Forum demographics map. Statistically speaking...

 

As far as reading the Bible as the literal word of God – Americans divide up as follows

• 33% Word of God, literally true word for word
  
• 30% Word of God, but not literally true word for word/ unsure if literally true
  
• 28% of Americans believe the Bible is a Book written by men, not the word of God

 

58% of Americans do not feel that the Bible is the literal word of God. This is more in line with research that I've come across in the past. The vast majority of Americans (even those who self-identify as Christian) do not read the Bible literally. Evolution though is a mixed bag. I did a bit more looking around and found This Pew Research article. It's a mixed bag to be sure... but one paragraph did stand out when reading it.

 

A survey conducted by Fox News in 1999 found nearly identical majorities of people favoring the teaching of evolution and opposing its removal from the curriculum. In one version of the question, respondents were told that the Kansas State Board of Education adopted new standards that would remove evolution from the mandatory curriculum; a 57% majority of registered voters disagreed with the board's actions, while 33% agreed with the removal. The other version stated that "the National Academy of Sciences recommended that evolution be taught to all public school students as the most convincing theory for how human beings developed" and then asked if respondents agreed or disagreed that evolution should be taught in all public schools: 56% agreed with teaching evolution and 35% disagreed with it. Thus, despite the invocation of two very different kinds of authority on opposite sides of the issue, the public opinion result was the same.

 

What stood out for me was that....

• Fox news did the survey - they're known for their own conservative bias
  
• With both questions the majority of respondents showed preference FOR teaching evolution in the classroom, not exactly the results Fox News would hope for.

 

So... it's probably fair to say that most school boards in this country, and most communities want evolution taught in the science classroom.

 

As for degrees, there is some "specialization" but in general teachers are expected to be able to teach a variety of subjects even though they may only teach the one they feel strongest in. The degree granted is usually something like "bachelor's degree in education." Hence, no degree in science although science is part of their college curriculum. It is possible to take these courses and learn what is "necessary" to pass the course. Heck, I could probably pass a theology course even though I don't believe in "theo."

My eldest has a degree that allows her to teach history at a highschool level. But... her experience is different from what you describe. Her actual major was a history major. She majored in history with some kind of education emphasis. SO... she had to do all the education courses, child development, student teaching, etc... but her major was history. That's why I asked, I thought her experience was the norm in education - I guess not.

 

How that religious bias may manifest is any one's guess. Subtle remarks may come in ("Yes clouds are condensed water vapor and cause rain, but God made water"). Or the teacher may have a more guided goal of showing that God is the cause of all weather, earthquakes, and so forth. Evolution just doesn't enter the class - they skip that chapter entirely (all too often).

I'm not doubting this for one minute. Although we live in a pretty liberal area, I grew up in a more conservative state. So... I don't doubt what you are saying.

 

America is pretty diverse - as all the Pew Research shows. It was my experience (growing up in a Catholic School system) that evolution was accepted as standard Scientific theory and taught as such. It's been decades since I was in a Catholic school, but I can't imagine they've changed their views all that much. In addition, I minored in environmental sciences at a Lutheran University - again I got standard scientific theory regarding evolution. And in fact, it was at this University that I was first exposed to the philosophical debates going on within the scientific community. I think mainline churches are pretty accepting of standard science, they may teach that God has a role in the process of evolution, but they don't deny it, they don't teach creationism.

 

And yet... I've no doubt in more conservative areas of the country that teachers and school boards would use the internal scientific debates and twist those debates to their own ends.

 

I'm not sure what the larger solution is... but... I guess when it gets right down to it... the more information we can get out to young people the more open-minded they are as they grow and become adults. In principal I think we can all agree on this, the question is how to do this in such a way that children are receiving well-rounded curriculum.

 

As I said earlier, I live in a pretty liberal area. My children went to school with children from many different religions as well as children from Agnostic and Atheist backgrounds. However there were also children within the school who come out of a very conservative background. Like I said it is a pretty diverse school system. So.... I can honestly say the teachers in our school system would be able to have these kinds of discussions in a science classroom and all views would be present and accepted. My son self-identifies as Atheist, he's never been shy about speaking his opinion - not even in school.

 

He told me once about taking a class on mythology in his junior or senior year. During the mythology class they studied creation stories from different cultures. My son brought up the Genesis account of creation as a creation myth. His teacher allowed the discussion within limited boundaries - admitting to the entire class that Genesis could be viewed as a creation myth - but also acknowledging the limits they could go in discussion because many in our culture viewed Genesis literally. My son was upset that the conversation wasn't allowed to go longer, but also understood the touchiness of the issue. It's a mixed bag to be sure... it would have been nice if they could have pursued it in more depth and one can only imagine the poor teacher having to defray a legitimate discussion. However, it's a conversation happening in a classroom that would not have happened when I was in high-school.

 

One could only hope that all teachers had the wisdom to know how to handle such discussions with fairness and awareness to all points of view. Like most things in this county - and in the world - change will come over time. It will most-likely bubble up from a local community level and grow into a larger movement.

[Legion]

I think my peers and I could have handled a philosophy of science class later in high school. I wish I had experienced such a class and that it would have covered these things...

 

The First Basic Dualism: self and ambience, subjective and objective

The Second Basic Dualism: natural systems and environments

Language: semantics, syntax, and formal systems

Entailment in Formal Systems

Comparing Formalisms

Entailment in the Ambience: Causality

The Modeling Relation and Natural Law

 

Having known the philosophy underlying the modeling relation would have brought a lot of things into focus for me before heading off to college. And I would have had a much better grasp of what science is trying to produce, namely, models.