<<If the Scientific Method were being taught, there would be no problem -- various theories about the history of the world and its creatures could be described, and the student encouraged to evaluate them using the Method.
I don't know exactly what goes on in Kansas, but my very strong impression of most teaching about evolution is that it is not taught in this way, but as truth which has been revealed by authority, and for which a confession of faith will be required on examination.>>
"Revealed by authority": Most children are taught in geography that the United States is bounded by two oceans, the one to the east being the smaller of the two No one would dream of calling that "revealed by authority." Gordon's knowledge that Kansas exists as a political unity is based on acceptance of authority, not independent investigation. His and my knowledge that there are 100+ elements rather than four is based on our acceptance of authorty. Without an immense trust in authority there is no independent thought -- human knowledge becomes simply impossible.
Acceptance of authority cannot be an issue. The only issues regard whose authority, how achieved, on which issues, how tested or implemented. Independent thought begins, always, with a clash of authorities. And as Gordon's post reveals so naively, it is not even possible to challenge authority without a prior trust in an enormous number of authorities.
As so many biologists have so tirelessly pointed out: there is the fact of evolution, on the one hand, which is no more controversial than any of the facts taught in elementary chemistry, and on the other hand there are the various theories (still debatable as the works of, e.g., Gould and Dawkins show) that explain the mechanism of evolution. That fact is so well established that the only basis for rejecting it is a radical scepticism which simply rejects the possibility of human knowledge. The differences over the theory are important (and have political implications) but a teaching of these differences is possible only within a context in which the fact of evolution is taken for granted. It is not "revealed" by authority but rather is shared human knowledge *passed on* by legitimate authority. And of course the legitimacy of any authority is established through various kinds of struggle. In many realms of knowledge there is and needs to be a huge battle over the legitimacy of this, that, or the other authority. This is usually true on the margins (the cutting edge) of most sciences. It is *not* true of the large established core of results produced by the physical and biological sciences. Argument over this is not intellectual exploration; it is mere obscurantism.
Gordon, however, while refusing to accept on legitimate authority elementary results of modern science believes (on faith?) in The "Method," and blithely asserts that it should be *taught*. But theories of "scientific method" are far more controversial than either the fact or the basic theory of evolution.(The conflict over "gradualism" vs. "punctuated equilibrium" is trivial in comparison to disagreements as to the nature of "scientific method.") One could even argue that one of the weaknesses of contemporary teaching of science is that it too easily suggests that the proper "scientific method" is known. Gordon's education must have been deficient in this respect. He had forced down his throat some simplified conception of scientific "Method" as the certain route to truth. Had his teachers represented legitimate authority in this case they would have taught him to be skeptical of any given conception of "The Method."
There are millions of people whose authority (whose biolgical training) qualifies them to affirm for us the facts of evolution, just as there are many whose authority (geological and geographical training) qualifies them to affirm for us the content of elementary geography. On the other hand there is no one I know of whose authority is sufficient to establish that such and such is The Method of science. (Kuhn? Russell? Quine? the St. Petersburg reviewer of *Capital* quoted by Marx? Wittgenstein? Whitehead?) There is an old proverb (I forget its exact wording) which describes Gordon: he is able to swallow the camel of a surefire "scientific Method" but strains at the gnat of evolution.
Gordon continues:
<<This was Carl Sagan's approach in a radio address which I heard a few weeks before he died, in reference to both evolution and UFOs, and I thought it was deplorable. Going by what I read in the _Wall_Street_ _Journal_, the school board in Kansas removed the required confession of faith, but did not restrain the teaching of evolution otherwise.>>
Lewontin has written a useful critique of Sagan's conception of scientific method (and it is this rather than Sagan's facts which needs to be debated). But note that Gordon accepts without question the authority of the WSJ for the details of the Kansas school board action. (Was it a WSJ news article or was it on the editorial pages? If the former, then probably the authority is fairly dependable, if the latter, probably not.) This is at least superior to his naive acceptance of hearsay as his authority on "the Method."
He continues:
<<I've brought this sort of consideration up elsewhere and been told that ordinary people are too stupid to use the Scientific Method and should listen to their betters, especially those in white coats. Surely no one on this mailing list would take that position, however.>>
We are to accept Gordon's authority for assuming that he "has been told" by someone whose opinion matters that people are too stupid....etc.? Who told him that? An elementary school teacher? A cab driver? His dissertation director? Quine? I refuse to take Gordon's authority that whoever told him this is someone whose opinion matters. And since it is a silly opinion that confuses stupidity with level of learning I will assume that Gordon is a very poor authority on authorities to trust.
Most high school students are *not* too stupid but they *are* too lacking in background to take graduate courses in nuclear physics or to read Homer in Greek [See postscript 1]. It would be interesting to discuss how much background is needed for an exploration of the various conflicting theories of scientific method, as well as theories on how, if at all, scientific method varies in the various "hard" and "soft" sciences (as well as explore whether that distinction into hard and soft is sensible).
Carrol
P.S. 1: The *Odyssey* (in translation) is sometimes taught in high school. Should the teacher take class time to explain to the students the complex meaning of *oikos* (untranslatable) in that poem or should she/he merely let them assume that it is a romantic novel and Odysseus is simply trying to get back to his beloved wife?
It will be difficult, incidentally, to explain the meaning of *oikos* without explaining the reality of historical change. That will be difficult if not impossible if the students don't take the fact of evolution for granted and recognize that there is some controversy about the theoretical explanation of that fact. I taught the *Odyssey* for 25 years at the college level -- and experienced the difficulties created by student unwillingness to take for granted (on authority) the basic *results* of the science of the last two hundred years.
P.S. 2 There is a real problem of authority which Gordon's sillyness conceals. Decision on most political issues depends on choosing which of competing authorities to accept -- and usually of authorities in realms in which one does not have technical competence. Consider the question of global warming.
The problem is posed sharply in the following post copied from the marxism list: Note that very few of us on this list, very few of all those whose judgments will ultimately count on this issue, are possessed of even minimal technical competence in this area. And when one of us wishes to argue it, we can only cite an authority. A reply can only be in the form of citing a contradictory authority. There can be here no questioning of authority except on the basis of a complete acceptance of authority.
-----------
>There is so much published on some topics that the topics themselves
>become irrelevant to thought. That is, the question of global warming
>cannot usefully enter into political or environmental thought because
>it is impossible to sort out the material published on it. Rational
>decision making on the issue has ceased to be a practical
>possibility.
>
>Carrol
This is a joke, right? If one makes the least amount of effort--through a search on amazon.com or misc.activism.progressive, for example, you will
discover that there is one outstanding book which presents the case for taking warnings about global warming seriously. That is Ross Gelbspan's "The Heat is On." I wish Carrol would spend less time on finding excuses
why he can't or won't read various books or posts, and more time reporting on things that he has read and recommends. As a retired college professor, he would seem to have the time and training to sort through material that interests him, which I assume would interest us as well. His "gruff old man who can't be bothered" shtick is growing wearisome. Walter Matthau does it much better at it and is entertaining to boot.
Louis Proyect
-------------
P.S. 3. *oikos* is the root of "economy," but unlike modern economies, the "economy" named by *oikos* was a completely planned one. Production was strictly for use and all products flowed into and were dispensed from the storerooms of the lord of the *oikos*, who also made all decisions on allocation of productive resources and labor, etc. etc. etc. See M.I. Finley, *The World of Odysseus*.