Oh, Dearest Mother, Sweetest Virgin of Altagracia, our Patroness. You are our Advocate and to you we recommend our needs. You are our Teacher and like disciples we come to learn from the example of your holy life. You are our Mother, and like children, we come to offer you all of the love of our hearts. Receive, dearest Mother, our offerings and listen attentively to our supplications. Amen.



Active Topics || Favorites || Member List || Search || About Us || Help || Register || Login
Philosophy of Education
 4Real Forums : Philosophy of Education
Subject Topic: Philosophy of science education Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 09 2010 at 7:25pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

Spin-off from one of the classical education threads:


1) What are the purposes of science?

2) What are the purposes of Catholic education?

3) With reference to 1) and 2), what are the purposes of Catholic science education?   


Nothing much to add right now; just wanted to put the question out there. I will return to this high-falutin' and cerebral discussion after cleaning up spit-up from the rug.
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 1:52am | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

Regarding the purpose of science, the Catechism says:

2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

The most obvious of these benefits are seen in the areas of applied science and technology. At the same time, the Church also recognizes the value of basic science, also known as "fundamental science" or "pure science." For example, this is a significant part of the work of the Pontifical Academy of Science.   But what are the benefits of this type of research? From a secular perspective, it's often justified as having some possible practical application (i.e. "payoff") in the distant future. To Catholics, though, inquiry into fundamental science has a purpose in itself. As John Paul II said in a speech to cosmologists:

"Unlike so many other sciences of nature, which are cultivated and developed with particular solicitude today because they put in man's hands the power to change the world in which he lives, your science is, in a certain sense, a 'gratuitous' science. It does not give man power to construct or to destroy, but it satisfies the pure desire, the deep ideal of knowing. And this, in a world strongly tempted by utilitarianism and thirst for command, is a value to bear witness to and to guard. (...) But, actually, to get to know the world is not a gratuitous or useless thing; on the contrary, it is supremely necessary in order to know who man is."

(Study the World to Know Man, 1979 address to a conference in honor of the 100th anniversary of Einstein's birth)

More from John Paul II relating to science can be found at the Caltech Newman Center -- Faith and Science Page.

Late last year, on the 400th anniversary of Galileo's invention of the telescope, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the huge impact that the scientific method has had on our understanding of the world and ourselves.

"Science was becoming something different from what the ancients had always thought it to be. Aristotle had made it possible to arrive at the certain knowledge of phenomena starting with evident and universal principles; Galileo then showed in practice how to approach and observe the phenomena themselves in order to understand their secret causes.

The method of deduction gave way to that of induction and prepared the ground for experimentation. The concept of science that had remained the same for centuries was now changing, entering into a modern conception of the world and of humankind."

At the same time, as the Catechism emphasizes, there are limits to what science can do. The Holy Father gave a reminder of this in his encyclical Spe Salvi (Saved in Hope).

"Man can never be redeemed simply from outside. Francis Bacon and those who followed in the intellectual current of modernity that he inspired were wrong to believe that man would be redeemed through science. Such an expectation asks too much of science; this kind of hope is deceptive. (...) It is not science that redeems man: man is redeemed by love."

There are many other interesting papal documents that relate to this subject, but I'll just mention one more. In Pius XII's 1951 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, he shows that St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence harmonize with the Big Bang Theory, and are even strengthened by it. As he says, "true science discovers God in an ever-increasing degree -- as though God were waiting behind every door opened by science."
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 2:29am | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

As for the purpose of education, here's a much-cited passage from Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri.

"Since education consists essentially in preparing man for what he must be and for what he must do here below, in order to attain the sublime end for which he was created, it is clear that there can be no true education which is not wholly directed to man's last end, and that in the present order of Providence, since God has revealed Himself to us in the Person of His Only Begotten Son, who alone is 'the way, the truth and the life,' there can be no ideally perfect education which is not Christian education.

8. From this we see the supreme importance of Christian education, not merely for each individual, but for families and for the whole of human society, whose perfection comes from the perfection of the elements that compose it. From these same principles, the excellence, we may well call it the unsurpassed excellence, of the work of Christian education becomes manifest and clear; for after all it aims at securing the Supreme Good, that is, God, for the souls of those who are being educated, and the maximum of well-being possible here below for human society."


Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
drmommy
Forum Pro
Forum Pro


Joined: Dec 14 2009
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 8:14am | IP Logged Quote drmommy

We defintely use science in a Catholic concept...to love and appreciate God's gifts to us. I remember being in O-chem, and thinking, wow! Who cannot believe in God? It was amazing...everything is so organized and in order, so beautiful...nature and science can be so spiritual, I don't understand how scientists choose to be atheists sometimes.

It is all to be used in balance, and to point back to our Creator.

Anyways, that's how science is here!
Back to Top View drmommy's Profile Search for other posts by drmommy
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 1:19pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

From what's been said so far, there seem to be at least three purposes to Catholic science education:

1) Teaching young people about some of the natural phenomena that science has uncovered, so as to help them better understand and appreciate God's wonderful creation.

2) Teaching young people about the methods, history, and philosophy of science itself (commonly known as "scientific literacy"), so that even non-scientists will be able to understand and interact with this important aspect of human culture.

3) Preparing young people for future careers in science and related fields.


It seems to me that purposes 1) and 2) are important for all of us, and that these aspects of science should be taught to each child according to his or her ability, as part of a liberal education. On the other hand, purpose 3) is more a matter of individual need and desire. As such, it's hard to see how rigorous preparatory courses in physics, chemistry, etc. should be included in a mandatory school curriculum.

The funny thing is, many scientists would agree with this. They believe that the world needs a relatively small number of highly trained scientists, and a much greater number of "scientifically literate" non-scientists. They don't think that the way that science is commonly taught in schools -- with its dry emphasis on facts, formulas, and terminology -- serves either group very well.   The non-scientists tend to end up thinking science is boring, and the future scientists aren't well-prepared for the realities of life in a research community, where things aren't as cut and dried as they're made to appear in school textbooks.

Here's a thoughtful and funny (and somewhat cranky ) paper on science education, by the late Father Stanley L. Jaki. He was a Benedictine priest and professor of physics, and was known for his writings on the relationship between science and religion.   

The Science of Education and Education in Science

(Note: The link is to a 100+ page PDF file, but Fr. Jaki's paper is only the first 16 pages. The rest of the papers are by other members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is made up of scientists from a variety of religious backgrounds.)
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Willa
Forum All-Star
Forum All-Star
Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 2:37pm | IP Logged Quote Willa

Eleanor wrote:

2) Teaching young people about the methods, history, and philosophy of science itself (commonly known as "scientific literacy"), so that even non-scientists will be able to understand and interact with this important aspect of human culture.

3) Preparing young people for future careers in science and related fields.


I'm looking forward to reading through the links.

Father Schwickerath, the writer of the turn-of-century "Jesuit Education", writes:

Quote:
No one will doubt for a moment that for the successful teaching of mathematics continual exercises are absolutely necessary. In natural sciences, particularly in physics and chemistry, the equivalent of the exercises are the experiments and especially the laboratory work. [ 1 ] On teaching physics and chemistry the Ratio has one very important remark, viz., the professor should not treat them merely, theoretically and mathematically, so that no time is left for the experiments; nor should he, on the other hand, spend so much time on the experiments that the teaching seems to be purely experimental; but sufficient time should be devoted to the principles, systems, theories, and hypotheses


here

Of course, he also wrote that science should not be allowed to take the pre-eminent place devoted to eloquence (basically, knowing how to use language and act well and virtuously).   Some people around the turn of the century apparently wanted to throw out literature and history studies, not to mention philosophy and theology, in favor of a science and math curriculum.   Catholics definitely wouldn't go along with that. So it's a matter of priorities.

I thought of a possible fourth reason for teaching some science. It's because it's our Catholic job to "claim all things for Christ" and if we leave the science field to the secularists, everybody loses.

Maybe that reason is actually just a restatement of #2 and #3 with a different emphasis.

I also wonder if science isn't just worthwhile because it is beautiful.   Aristotle thought that studying natural things could lead to insight about metaphysics, and the Psalms express a love for nature that is often echoed by scientists.    

In a book called The Evidential Power of Beauty Father Dubay writes that the natural world is beautiful and elegant. He says that elegance has even become a criterion for a scientific theory, especially in physics, I suppose, but also in other fields.    

(ETA: those last couple of paragraphs I suppose are a restatement of your #1, Eleanor)

I'm following the topic with interest but unable to think very deep thoughts because we are all down with the after-effects of a virus

__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
Back to Top View Willa's Profile Search for other posts by Willa
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 3:52pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

Willa wrote:
Of course, he also wrote that science should not be allowed to take the pre-eminent place devoted to eloquence (basically, knowing how to use language and act well and virtuously).   Some people around the turn of the century apparently wanted to throw out literature and history studies, not to mention philosophy and theology, in favor of a science and math curriculum.   Catholics definitely wouldn't go along with that. So it's a matter of priorities.

This is something that Father Jaki talks about at length. He even suggests that Latin and Greek shouldn't have been taken out of the curriculum.   He also quotes Schrödinger, who spoke of "the grotesque phenomenon of scientifically trained, highly competent minds with an unbelievably childlike - undeveloped or atrophied - philosophical outlook."    


Hope you feel better soon. We are exploring the germ theory of disease over here, too.
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Mackfam
Board Moderator
Board Moderator
Avatar
Non Nobis

Joined: April 24 2006
Location: Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14656
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 4:12pm | IP Logged Quote Mackfam

I haven't read this book, but my dad is reading it as a Catholic scientist who is discussing it with philosophy and theology professors as part of a philosophical discussion at a small, liberal arts Catholic college. I thought of the book as soon as I saw this thread posted and thought I'd drop in the link for you to consider:

The Two Cultures by C. P. Snow

__________________
Jen Mackintosh
Wife to Rob, mom to dd 19, ds 16, ds 11, dd 8, and dd 3
Wildflowers and Marbles
Back to Top View Mackfam's Profile Search for other posts by Mackfam Visit Mackfam's Homepage
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 9:30pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

Okay, now I want to read "The Two Cultures!" Father Jaki mentions it in his paper on science education, and he doesn't seem to have a high opinion of it. For one thing, he says that C. P. Snow was being deceptive by appearing to give equal time to science and the humanities, while actually promoting science (or, more precisely, engineering) as the "way of the future."

For another, Fr. Jaki sees science as already having a very human aspect. Rather than encouraging scientists to spend more time studying other disciplines such as literature (which is what Snow seems to recommend), he exhorts them to study the history of their own field, using the original sources. For instance, instead of reading more Shakespeare, they could spend time reading Darwin's letters. This would help them to understand human nature and the limits of scientific inquiry, and approach their work with humility.

Of course, he doesn't mean to say that young people should be given the option of just studying science, instead of a traditional liberal arts curriculum. He seems to believe that the pursuit of scientific knowledge should have a classical education as its foundation. (In his paper, he actually set out to demonstrate this to his colleagues, using some diagrams... not sure how successful that was! ) His point is that science isn't simply a bunch of numerical calculations, a dry subject whose scholars will inevitably need "humanizing" from outside sources such as literature. In reality, it's a cultural pursuit in itself, and should be treated as such.   
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 10 2010 at 10:53pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

Here are a few articles that I found while searching for more about Father Stanley Jaki.

When he died last year, the ISI journal published this short biography. There were also longer, more personal memorials published in Inside the Vatican and the New Oxford Review.

Here's a long article that describes his ideas (which he developed from earlier work by another priest and physicist, Father Duhem) about how the medieval interplay of Christian and classical culture made the development of science possible. The article was written by a Protestant by the name of Eric V. Snow (looks like we're having a blizzard around here!), but it seems to be even-handed in its treatment of the subject.

Is Christianity A Cause of Science?

Finally, here's a blog dedicated to the work of Fr. Jaki and Fr. Duhem:

http://theduhemsociety.blogspot.com/

I'm very glad to have learned of his work, and hope that more of his writings will become available online in the future.
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 11 2010 at 10:00am | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

Putting this in historical perspective, I'm wondering now about the history of science education in Catholic schools (especially Jesuit schools), from medieval times onward.   It's been several centuries since the Ratio Studiorum was published, and while the principles are still as valuable as ever, the practical application of the curriculum has gradually changed. Many of these changes have to do with integrating the study of science with the traditional classical curriculum -- an ongoing project that goes back to the Middle Ages and is one of the greatest challenges that Christendom has faced, as Frs. Duhem and Jaki point out. I'm sure there was a lot of lively discussion and debate along the way.

Willa, when you're feeling better (or anyone else), I hope you can share some more about this.
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Willa
Forum All-Star
Forum All-Star
Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
Posted: Feb 11 2010 at 5:48pm | IP Logged Quote Willa

Eleanor wrote:
2) Teaching young people about the methods, history, and philosophy of science itself (commonly known as "scientific literacy"), so that even non-scientists will be able to understand and interact with this important aspect of human culture.


A quote from Aristotle -- it seemed somewhat to relate to your 2nd point:

Quote:
Every systematic science, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two distinct kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called scientific knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of educational acquaintance with it. For an educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgement as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability. It will, however, of course, be understood that we only ascribe universal education to one who in his own individual person is thus critical in all or nearly all branches of knowledge, and not to one who has a like ability merely in some special subject. For it is possible for a man to have this competence in some one branch of knowledge without having it in all.
On the Parts of Animals

When he talks about science, of course, he isn't just talking about the natural sciences, but about metaphysics and mathematics as well.

Father Jaki wrote a book called The Savior of Science which I read, but can't claim to have comprehended thoroughly -- but he makes the point that Christianity in many respects gave birth to empirical science methodology, because of its adherence to realism, while other religions departed from demonstrative knowledge towards esotericism and fideism.

The Church has always seen a pursuit of science (with theology as the pre-eminent science) as crucial in avoiding those temptations.

Following along, but teenager needs to use the computer right now so off I go

__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
Back to Top View Willa's Profile Search for other posts by Willa
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 13 2010 at 7:35pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

I was just doing some unpacking and came across a pamphlet, published in 1943, that we inherited from DH's parents:

"Catholic Education: Its Philosophy, Its Fundamentals, Its Objectives" by William J. McGucken, SJ

It's only 40 pages long, and IMO it gives a very clear and readable summary of the subject.   In the section entitled "The Catholic Theory of a Liberal Education," he says:

"All that is human must enter into the education that is humanistic and liberal. All that is human, all that belongs to man -- the true, the beautiful, the good -- all these constitute the elements of humanism in education. Not one alone, but a synthesis of all three. Not merely Greek thought and Roman thought, but Christian thought and Christian art, and modern thought and modern art and modern science as well -- in so far as they are true, beautiful, good -- these are the elements, often jarring because of false emphasis of one over the other, that must be harmonized to secure a liberal education."

and later,

"Science and mathematics will play their part; they are the language of the contemporary world and are needed to impart experience in scientific method."

This sounds much like the idea of "scientific literacy."

This being a short pamphlet, Fr. McGucken doesn't explain how Catholic educators over the centuries have gone about discerning what is "true, good, and beautiful" in science, and what safeguards they've put in place to avoid a "false emphasis." I'm hoping that he goes into this in his much longer book, The Jesuits and Education, which I'm looking forward to reading (as soon as I've unpacked some more!).

Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: Feb 24 2010 at 12:49pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

Here's a promising development.

I have a devout Catholic friend who's involved with an organization called the Institute for Advanced Physics, directed by Anthony Rizzi. Their mission statement starts as follows:

"The Institute for Advanced Physics is established to advance modern science in a balanced fashion that does not leave behind the correct philosophical foundations, nor the proper moral and spiritual components."

They've published a textbook for advanced high school/introductory college level students, called Physics for Realists. My husband (another math/science guy) was very keen on looking at it, and supporting the IAP's work, so we now have the book on our coffee table. Yes, we are a bunch of nerds around here.

They also have a distance learning course, "The Science Before Science," for those who are interested in the philosophical foundations of modern science. The course is offered by the International Catholic University, which was founded by the late Dr. Ralph McInerny.   The link on the IAP's web site site doesn't seem to work, but I found this one that does:

International Catholic University

Dr. Rizzi's course is listed as #39, in the Self-Study section. Part of the first lecture is available on YouTube.

Here are some other relevant courses offered by ICU (also with sample video clips available) :

Philosophy of Nature -- William A. Wallace, OP
Galileo: Science and Religion -- William Carroll and Peter Hodgson
Science and Belief -- Peter Hodgson
Biology and the Faith -- Martinez Hewlett

We may be in a sort of desert right now, but good things are appearing on the horizon.

Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: March 01 2010 at 3:01pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

There are also some interesting resources over at Ye Hedge School (which I found out about from an old thread here... thank you Kathryn in the UK ). The author has a background in science herself, and she's been influenced by Fr. Jaki's work. Here's one of her essays:

Classical Definition of Science

Hmm. I share her concerns about the way the contemporary "classical education" movement deals (or fails to deal) with science. The thing is, her own curriculum outline seems to go the other way, and leave out the Latin and Greek. Do we really have to pick one or the other? Fr. Jaki himself didn't seem to think so. But I'm not sure if he ever sketched out a plan himself... and there are only so many hours in the day.

Perhaps what's most important isn't the formal study of science (especially at young ages), but the establishing of a "scientifically literate" atmosphere in the home. This makes me think of Art Robinson; he's about as pro-science as you can get, but he doesn't recommend starting science classes until high school. In the meantime, his children are exposed to various aspects of science through daily life: hobbies, farm work, helping in their family's laboratory, conversations with visiting scientists, etc.

Of course, not all of us can have Nobel prize winners over to dinner, or set up a working lab in our garage. In the same way, we're not all going to be hobnobbing with world-class musicians, artists, or philosophers. Still, we can each find ways to bring in aspects of these cultural disciplines to enrich our families' lives, and to show our children how they fit in to a Christian society.
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 
LucyP
Forum All-Star
Forum All-Star


Joined: Aug 05 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 791
Posted: March 01 2010 at 5:21pm | IP Logged Quote LucyP

Gosh I feel very small minded compared to you wise ladies. Bearing in mind at the moment I am learning formally with 1 x 6yo and informally with a 2yo, I just see science as helping them feel connected to the world around them, how it works and hangs together, and the awe and mystery of God who made it all. We are focussing on biology, botany and observational science "experiments". I want the children to be, as was said above, "scientifically literate", and to feel equipped to at least try to understand big issues like embryo research, global warming etc.
Back to Top View LucyP's Profile Search for other posts by LucyP
 
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Forum Pro
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
Posted: March 01 2010 at 6:13pm | IP Logged Quote Eleanor

Lucy, that makes a lot of sense, and it seems to be what all those "philosophers of science" are getting at. I guess some of us just like to take the long and scenic way around.

On a practical level, I'm currently trying to figure out:

1) Which of our accumulated science books/videos/etc. to keep out on the shelves, which ones to store for later, and which ones to get rid of. (We have a good public library nearby, so there's no need to keep an extensive selection of so-so books "just in case.")

2) Whether or not to use Montessori-style "great lessons" (which are based on the story of creation and human history, and include a lot of science) for structuring our elementary studies.   

This thread has helped with both decisions. At this point, I'm thinking that we will do some version of the great lessons, maybe working in some of the timelines and other materials from Ye Hedge School. And I'm becoming more ruthless about getting rid of science and nature books that are full of facts but lacking in meaningful context (AKA twaddle ).
Back to Top View Eleanor's Profile Search for other posts by Eleanor
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

  [Add this topic to My Favorites] Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Hosting and Support provided by theNetSmith.com