Squeers,

'The "doctrine" that if you can't subject the thing to scientific method, it ain't worth subjectivising.'

Do you have a better methodological apparatus ? To the extent that we all try to grasp, not just reality, but what the 'best of scientific method' has proposed so far, we all subjectivise our knowledge. What and how we understand science IS subjective, unavoidably.

And why go back centuries and talk about the 'clockwork majesty of the universe' ? What scientists would believe that these days, now that uncertainty and openness and the unfinished nature of all knowledge is more readily admitted ?

Joe

"One useful exercise in science classes would be to call in a Western engineer, a Christian theologian and an Aboriginal medicine man, give them each a pile of wood and some fasteners, and tell them they need to get a horse across a creek." (Jon J)

My money's on the Aboriginal "medicine" man to win the challenge. He's the least specialised of the three, hence the most likely to turn his attention to achieving a practical solution quickly.

He might even win by finding a convenient ford that everyone else had overlooked. Wouldn't that be an embarrassment to the engineer!

Joe Lane
Not sure if we disagree. The notion of knowledge as a social construct as proposed by some sociologists is a form of cultural relativism; it often uses Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a confirmation that knowledge is a mere social construct and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. This then gets translated as a view that all explanations of the world are equally valid. This is both a distortion of Kuhn's arguments and leads to a position that myths are just as valid as the hypotheses developed in science.
If your understanding of a social construct is merely that science is a product of human reflection about the world in which we live then we do not disagree. If, however, you interpret social construct as meaning that all human insights about our world are equally valid then we do disagre

Baygon,

No, I agree with you, not all interpretations of reality are equal, or equally valid whatever that may mean. Firstly, if a proposition cannot be tested, then it cannot stand up as well as one which can. And if one proposition can be tested and not knocked down, or falsified, while another proposition fails the same test, then the first one is more 'valid'. Myths and religious beliefs fail at the first hurdle, and the Catholic (and many others') notion of a geocentric universe fails the second test, while Galileo's passes.

This is not to say that systems of myths are all childish and vapid - people have often shown genius in trying to understand the world as it impinges on them, with a very limited range of tools: their technology of knowledge may be little more than their senses and what may have been hard-earned empirical knowledge, passed down from more experienced people in their own group or diffusing from their neighbours. All humans are equal, but their creations, their understandings and their cultural practices, may not be (to the extent that one can talk about such equality), limited as they have been by their learning tools.

Paul, as if a 'western engineer' wouldn't have spied out the best point for a crossing from the outset ? My money's on the engineer, every time. Ritual and magic may not be as effective as basic applied physics in building bridges.

Joe

What an excellent article, LE, thanks for spreading some sanity! I smiled when you wrote about Thor- it reminded me of my grandmother, who used to joke whenever there was a thunderstorm, that Thor was having a party in the sky.

Of course, woo-woo does not belong in science class. I am shocked to read about science in QLD schools!
Unlike scientific thinking, religious thinking does not recognise, or is not interested in, the real relation between cause and effect.
No, the cause of events is entirely the influence of a god, who is also the inventor and creator of the universe.
The religious have a special relationship with their god- many believe that they are even able to influence their god by prayer, thereby believing that they somehow have magical control over the effects or consequences through their god.
This is a kind of thinking that is as far away from scientific thinking as one can imagine; it’s a total loss of reality.

I can imagine that the religious can be envious to see science and technology create so many great things in such a relatively short time frame, intelligently explain and demonstrate how they created all these things, repeat them on demand (no need for prayer) and even improve on things that their god created, (doing great things for humanity while paying tax) when the religious still have nothing to show for.
Me thinks that one reason why these religious ministers and 'educators' so desperately want to continue to dumb down science ed. is because they suffer from creation-envy.

Yes, science should be taught in all schools as a separate subject to religion.
However, even if religion is not a subject routinely taught in many schools, I believe that being taught about the many religions and Gods worshiped in our world will serve to enrich our children's knowledge of our history, ethics and morals.

Surely having a sound knowledge of ethics and morality that many religious-based classes give will only add positively to the knowledge gained in science classes?

Many scientific discussions or debates, as well as in everyday life, can also include some references to the history provided by the Bible for instance.

I do agree however, that Creationism has no place in a modern science classroom. It can be mentioned in either a religious instruction class or a history class.