Science
"illiteracy" is deemed to be a great problem by many science
professionals and educators. In response there has been a drive to identify and
clarify exactly what curricular
elements should be known {scan link for bullet points}at specific
stages of general education. What are some of the "Top 20 Greatest Hits of
Science"? (reported in Science, Jan. '91) According to Profs. Hazen
and Trefil, the list begins with "the universe is regular and
predictable" and ends with "all life is connected". This is
deceptively simple however, for the remainder connect Newton's Laws of Motion and
Thermodynamics with electric and gravitational forces, atomic theory, geology
and ecology. Throw in Einstein, Heisenberg and the expansion of the universe
and of course, "All living things are made of cells...based on the same
genetic code." If you don't know about quarks and leptons, nor the
distinction between DNA and RNA, you are not alone -- but you don't know the
world of science as scientists know it. Some contemporary writers have compared
the current view of science with the worldview of philosophies and religions of
the Far East. Both challenge us to consider that the “solidity”
of the world is but an illusion
If
ethical theory is to be consistent with a given worldview, what then is a
generalized view of "science"? This question is as hard to answer as
stating a generalized view of religion or spirituality. And scientist really
aren't the only materialists; from Hobbes to Marx and even Freud, there is a
common assumption that reality is ultimately material in nature, and is
measurable, regular and predictable. All matter is built with atoms, and all
atoms are energy. All organic matter has the same basic building blocks of DNA.
Finally, all sentient creatures (from the lowly worm a ganglia
"proto-brain" to you!) seek pleasure and avoid pain. This last point
is the bridge to Utilitarianism, for Jeremy Bentham rejected any pre-given notion
of the good, and instead founded his ethical theory on making a functional
equivalent between pleasure and the good.
There
are implications of this that are far reaching, however, and before declaring
that one shares this particular worldview one should consider what it excludes.
This view reduces many human activities to behaviors determined by genes or
environment. Thus the arts, religion and even human interaction are measurable
and predictable as a discharge of energy directed by the fatalistic whim of
nature or nurture. Human existence is more complex, but no greater, than any
other life-form, and indeed it may be the life-form that is least healthy for
the total ecology. God, the arts and humanities are explained away in a puff of
science. If one adopts the Materialistic worldview, are they unavoidably
condemned to an atheistic and fatalistic approach to the human condition? Not
at all -- yet, the onus is on the materialist to then explain, without
contradiction, just how they resolve their views. For example, Love is only
understood in terms of the genetic imperative to pass on preferred genetic
heritage, but most of us don't really look at it that way. I couldn't help but
note that the following quote is from James Trefil, one of the authors of the
"top 20" list, and numerous articles on science literacy -- he was
asked if there is such a thing as
"true love"...
Enjoy!