Sense about Science?

Following RPE201 (Philosophy, Science and Belief)- many of us have been talking about related issues - - I thought this video might then be pertinent..
D.

Kuhn, Anamolies, and those pesky Homeopaths

Those who enjoyed RPE201 (Philosophy, Science and Belief) may enjoy the piece at http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/expect-the-unexpected/ which discusses how to make sense of the role of anomalous results / findings in the context of Kuhn's thought.

It also makes reference to the way that homeopathy has tended to mis-use scientific ideas (see badscience.net for some excellent material on this, and the role of evidence, risk and the like in science). If you want to understand more about evidence-based medicine and the problem with homeopathy - there is a fuller piece at http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/ which is well worth a read...


Dave

29% of teachers say Intelligent Design should be taught in science lessons

As indicated by this article in the Guardian, this debate seems to have transversed the Atlantic and is gaining momentum in British society.

Whether evolutionary theory is the only legitimate scientific explanation for the existence of life begs the question, 'What is science?' For, if science classes in schools covers that which falls under the remit of science, then creationism and intelligent design must first fulfil the criteria to be a considered science. Otherwise, their place is within religious studies or the general humanities.

Advocates of intelligence design might argue that the problem lies with our education system that delineates so severely between different subjects as if they were self contained entities. The very fact that we place such emphasis on science as a subject that tells us how the world 'really is' assumes that there is something particularly special about its methods and results. Religious studies in contrast, is usually reduced to a minor (and 'easy') subject.

This debate highlights limitations with our education system and the gravitas we give to particular subjects without studying the foundational assumptions upon which they rest. Where, in the national curriculum, is there any real discussion about what is science, and whether scientific methods are better than any other ways of understanding the world? This seems fundamental to the whole argument.

I have no truck with those that believe in intelligent design nor creationism but I do sympathise with their efforts to question the whole system of science education in schools. I would not advocate that either theory gets taught as part of the science curriculum, for they are not sciences, but I do think there should be a place for students to discuss the underpinning assumptions about science.

Religion & Science radio shows

There are some very interesting radio programmes on Religion and Science from Wisconsin Public Radio at http://www.wpr.org/book/061119a.html - lots to think about here..

(spotted via our friends in Florida at http://unfspb.wordpress.com/ - thanks)

D.

Can the mind exist independently of the body?

The University of Southampton has launched the AWARE project in a scientific attempt to determine what happens when we die. People often talk of having Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) but there are lots of rational explanations that can be givien for such experieinces, but what this new project is aiming to do is find more empirical evidence for NDEs. One experiment involves placing images in the hospital that can only be seen from above and then asking patients that have been in a 'flatline' state whether they 'saw' anything unusual in the theatre and to describe it. The results may prove interesting. Presumably if it turns out that thousands of people do report seeing these same images this would raise interesting philosophical issues concerinig the relationship between the physical brain and a seemingly non-physical mind?