My final reading for this course is from Bauer, chapters 4 and 5, respectively titled "Other Fables About Science" and "Imperfections of the Filter". Some of the fables the author discusses include if science is factual, if science knowledge is like a map, if successful prediction necessarily makes a theory correct, if science is truly open-minded, if scientists should publish all their data and give credit to those whose work they build on, if science is self-correcting, and if great scientists can speak for science. Bauer addresses each of these ideas, and provides much evidence and logic as to why they are not always true, and therefore fables, as he calls them. I think again it all goes back to the point that as long as humans do science, human foibles will by defintion be part of the process. I have to reiterate that I don't think this necessarily calls for a total sacking and debunking of the scientific method. At the same time I agree with Bauer on nearly every point, except for ultimately why he is so against the scientific method. I also must restate that the concurrent reading of The Double Helix is extremely enlightening, even if Bauer references one observer who says Watson "has given his more spontaneous acts the color of calculation". Bauer also suggests Watson downplays the amount of intense reading and thinking that he and Crick had to do, although I don't agree with this personally, based on my reading of the book.
In chapter five he continues by discussing the imperfections of the knowledge filter, so he is acknowledging it is not perfect either, because current knowledge may be misleading, scientists cannot be completely objective, and human institutions function imperfectly. Once again Bauer is showing that science is much more of a winding road, filled with pot-holes, than most science textbooks make it out to be. These misconceptions are then perpetuated by students and teachers who rely too heavily on the texts, and not on original and solid secondary sources. It is important for students to see that scientists are human, do not always work the same way, and science is not a straight line process, either in time or content. The idea of scientists using "reality therapy" was new and surprising to me, in how complete objectivity may not be reachable, but consensus is more likely to come about.
As to what from this course makes more sense to me now, I would have to say Bauer's explanation of Kuhn's revolutions has made his concepts more understandable to me. The whole of the Bauer reading will affect me as a science educator in bringing terminology and relative placement to the various ways that science works, so I can more effectively relate these ideas to my students and colleagues, and help in the future if I have the opportunity to train prospective science teachers at the university level.
I was pleased to see a reference to Carl Sagan, who is by far one of my favorite authors, and through his writings one of the best science teachers ever.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
1 comment:
That is my goal, and I hope to be effective at it. Bauer kind of has to sink in a little for me, and I need to consider it in terms of who he was actually writing for, as you said. His writing has definitely been beneficial.
Post a Comment