An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)

quote:

---

When Students already struggle to understand the basics, why are we going to waste time in science classes on such matters?

---

I think the inclusion of a limited amount of philosophy/history of science within the science curriculum is an excellent idea. Precisely because, if done reasonably well, I believe it will actually help students get to grips with science. Philosophy of Science is the basics; at the moment most students pick up what philosphy of science they get in a distinctly ad hoc fashion.Do you actually think it harms a students education to be taught what a hypotheses and theories are? A run through positivism, falsificationism and Kuhnian paradigms would put a lot of scientific development in context. OK, if your science lesson consists of the teacher giving you instructions to do an experiment you probably don't need to understand why the experiment is designed that way, but surely it must help. And, experimental design depends to a large extent upon underlying philosophical assumptions - the specific theories and prior observations that led to that experiment, and beyond that questions of what a positive or negative outcome would indicate in the broader scheme of things.Though I agree with you, concentrating on Darwin (even mentioning evolution) wouldn't help much. There are probably far better examples of different philosophical approaches to science that illustrate the principles more clearly, and without the baggage evolution tends to drag around with it.

quote:

---

I recommened that they discuss the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism

---

But, is that Philosophy of Science? Or, as I would say, philosophy that's been developed from science but not inherent within the science itself?The Theory of Evolution is simple. There is variety within species, and genetic mutation adds to that pool of variation. Natural selection acts upon that variation within isolated populations, with some varients favourably passed on as they aid reproductive success of the population in the environment the population is in. Isolated populations thus develop different variations, ultimately leading to speciation. What "philosophical and social implications" are there in that theory?

quote:

---

All science classes in MD have standards--basic minimums--that include a section on the scientific method. Some would argue that the sci method covers enough of the philosophy of science that students need to know in order to function--and sometimes excel--in the sciences. The sci method defines science and how it is used based on the standards set forth by the NCS and the NAS. If it is good enough for the national organizations that are actually made up of scientists doing actual scientific research, then it should be good enough for the states.

---

Not knowing the specific content of a section of the curriculum on scientific method I can't comment on the specifics. But, I would consider defining science to be the basic task of a Philosophy of Science - such a philosophy should try to explain how scientific theories are developed, tested and refined, it should explain how observations and theoretical expectations are linked, it should explain inherent limitations to the scientific method. As I said yesterday, I can see how such a module can run through Philosophies of Science in a historical manner - starting with Baconian Positivism, through Popperian Falsificationism and Kuhnian Paradigm shifts (which, I think is far more a description of how scientists, and scientific communities, operate than a philosophy per se). I think such an approach underlies all of science, so should be in a general science curriculum rather than a specific biology or physics curriculum.I would have found such a unit in my science education very helpful, and it's something I've found myself looking into after the conclusion of my formal science education (which is definitely out of sequence). There's something not quite right about an education system that can award someone a degree entitled "Doctor of Philosophy" (in my case, that's in Nuclear Physics) without any formal teaching of philosophy.

quote:

---

Well, thats fine, but how about if science quits excommunicating heretics who try to do the ID work in the meantime.

​

If people werent so scared for thier career and reputation...but mainstream science intimidates them into silence. Follow the program or face the wrath of the high priests of Darwin!

---

There are plenty of "heretics" who have already put their reputation well and truly in the ID camp. In terms of reputations and careers in mainstream science the likes of Behe et al have nothing to lose and everything to gain by by making definite actual predictions of how ID will produce different experimental results to mainstream science, and then getting them tested. If they actually find an anomaly that mainstream science can't explain I'll expect that mainstream scientists will examine it thoroughly, and if the anomaly (actually, preferably several anomalies) holds up under the scrutiny of science then, and only then, is there a case for re-writing the text books.

STEP 6: Teenage boy and girl exclaiming "How did we get this baby? There was no stork that visited us! No one told us that we could have children without a stork!"

quote:

---

Because ID is a variation of the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method.

---

OK, here's a grossly simplified version of the underlying philosophy of the scientific method.1) The world exists, and consists of material objects, here "material" includes matter and energy (there may be non-material, aka spiritual, objects as well)2) Those material objects in an ordered and predictable manner (any non-material objects may, or may not, behave in such an ordered and predictable manner)3) By studying those material objects it is possible to learn something about the way in which they behave (non-material objects may, or may not, be amenable to such study depending on whether or not they are also ordered and predictable)4) Knowledge about how things behave allows us to formulate hypotheses and theories about such things. If they are truly ordered and predictable then such theories and hypotheses can be used to make predictions about the outcomes of further observations.5) The outcomes of further observations can be used to judge the accuracy of hypotheses and theories, and lead to more refined hypotheses and theories. If the object being studied is not ordered and predictable, further observations are irrelevant to testing of such theories and predictions.OK. So, where does ID fit in? If the Designer is ordered and predictable then, I suppose, we can investigate the nature of the Designer using the above approach. Whether you want to call that "science" depends to an extent on whether or not you want to limit science solely to the investigation of the material. If, however, the Designer is a free agent and hence able to act in a manner that is not limited to acting in an entirely predictable manner then the above approach is useless in investigating either the nature of the Designer (except, possibly, to demonstrate that he isn't confined by physical laws) or any effect the Designer has caused. Which, considering as the Designer seems to rarely be described as bound by physical laws and hence predictable and amenable (in principal if not in practice) to laboratory testing, is where ID differs from the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method.

quote:

---

Does this method apply to all fields, such as historical sciences, or quantum theory?

---

As I said, it was a grossly simplified description. Different fields of science would demonstrate slight varients within that broad picture. So, for example, in physics or chemistry observations will be from laboratory experiments under controlled conditions, where it's relatively simple to constrain the measurements to potentially falsify a theory. On the other hand observations in paleantology and astrophysics are much more subject to chance (A prediction can be made that if a particular type of star goes super-nova that a particular neutrino flux would be produced, but we can't make stars go supernova to order to test that so we need to rely on waiting for a suitable supernova to be observed. Likewise, we can predict that certain intermediate creatures would have existed in the evolutionary chain, but there's no guarantee any of them were fossilised or will be dug up any time soon). Some theories will be amenable to expression in mathematics, others will be harder to express mathematically.

quote:

---

If it looks designed, should we really ignore that implication?

---

I'd consider apparent design to be a valid observation. Something like the Theory of Evolution would say that populations evolve under the pressure of natural selection, and so be well suited to the environment they live in - if the apparent design observed is that life forms are suited to the environments they live in then that's an observation that the ToE predicts.

quote:

---

It was Kansas State University biologist Scott Todd who said that even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

---

Well, I don't know of Scott Todd. But, there are people on both sides of the argument who often fail to grasp the issues properly (Dawkins is another one - I'm sure there's a discussion on this forum somewhere discussing Dawkins). That's a good reason to give people a good grounding in Philosophy of Science - it stops scientists and non-scientists a reduced basis for making stupid comments.As I said, some people do exclude the non-material from science a priori. That's something I would consider to be a false step. I would exclude the non-material from science on the basis that getting to the point where you say "there's an intelligent designer" stops the ability to produce a theory that can make testable predictions. If such a position is science, it's the end of science. I'd almost say that, by definition, an intelligence does not operate in a way that is predictable and testable.I happen to believe that there is an intelligence behind the world. But to invoke that intelligence to explain observational data isn't science, it's religion.

quote:

---

Well there is a specific branch of philosophy which is 'philosophy of science', but how relevant the connection between that and actual science in the lab is is arguable. I certainly know very few scientists who are liable to spend their lab meetings discussing Baconian Vs. Popperian models of science or the true significance of Kuhnian paradigm shifts.

---

That's very true. Not many scientists would describe what they do in terms that fall within the formal definitions of various philosophies of science. But, at those lab meetings (or, more often, over morning coffee or a beer in the bar at a conference) scientists will discuss the latest experiment they're putting together, and ask questions about the design and whether or not it'll be able to distinguish between different possible theories. They may not be using the language of philosophies of science, that doesn't alter the fact that that is what they are doing.If we'd been given a basic introduction to the philosophical approaches we instinctively use would we be better scientists? Maybe, I don't know. But I'd bet it would reduce the level of arrogance some scientists seem to display (a few hours thinking through the issues really is illuminating in terms of illustrating how little science can actually prove). And, if the members of society who aren't practicing scientists had that same basic introduction it might help them hold science in a more healthy perspective (not just re: religious issues, but the various scares about food additives and the like too).

quote:

---

if you approach science with a strict, methodological approach, you will get results that are consistant with a naturalist philosophy.

---

Of course you will get results consistant with a naturalist philosophy. You also won't get results that are inconsistant with a theistic philosophy. The thing that it would be helpful for people to realise is that scientific methodology is not a subset of either naturalistic, theistic, deist or anyother overarching philosophy. It stands on its own, more or less independant of these broader philosophies.Yes, scientific results can be wheeled out as evidence in favour of one philosophy or another. So, Dawkins can produce the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution and go "ta da! God isn't needed", and I can produce exactly the same neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution and go "wow! Look at how ingenious God is in his creative activity".One scientist may say "the Heavens declare the glory of God" and spend his life studying the stars making astounding discoveries about astrophysics. Another may say "there's no God" and devote his life to examining the stars to show how they could have formed without God. Both of them will present their work at the same conferences, be respected by their peers for the quality and importance of their work, and probably both will use the results of the other to support their religious views.

Of course mainstream scientists will take the view that the interpretation of the evidence that they have is the best possible interpretation that they have. To do otherwise is just plain daft.So, to bash on with the common example, mainstream scientists look at the relevant evidence (fossils, genetic data from existing species etc) and consider the Theory of Evolution is the best possible explanation for that evidence. What mainstream scientists (with a few exceptions) don't say is that the Theory of Evolution rules out a possible Creator or Designer, nor for that matter that there's conclusive scientific proof for either. Mainstream science may be incompatible with certain theories of creation that try and muscle in on the scientific turf. But there's no way a scientist can say the earth wasn't created 6000 years ago with everything in place to make it look like it's 4.5 billion years old, nor that life on earth was created at that time with everything in place to make it look like life evolved from simple cells to the variety we see today. A scientist can say that there's no evidence of accelerated radioactive decay, significant changes in the speed of light, or any of the other "scientific" theories proposed by some people who try and force the scientific data into a recent Creation model. A scientist can say that there are possible mechanisms for blood clotting cascades to have developed from other biochemical pathways with the intervention of an intelligent designer, contra people who may postulate such "irriducibly complex" systems as proof for such a designer. Science can't rule out an intelligent designer who worked leaving no scientific evidence of his activity; but then what would be the point of science investigating such an invisible designer?