4 ms·
The author gives quite a few examples what science supposedly is not, however doesn't really say what science is. From the declaration of totalizing aspiration,
by yk 4y ago
The author gives quite a few examples what science supposedly is not, however doesn't really say what science is. From the declaration of totalizing aspiration, "I would argue that there is only one kind of knowledge, at least about the real world, and that is empirical knowledge," it seems that he would get into trouble trying to differentiate an account of Maori crafts and effective field theories. Thing is, Maoris were perfectly capable of building functional boats, and if that is science, then it is not clear why it shouldn't be taught in a science class. On the other hand, if science is the way to some upper case Truth, then effective field theory, which is probably the most mainstream understanding of the standard model, does quite explicitly not make such claims. It just claims to be a low energy approximation. So, in that case the question is what should be taught in a science class.
> But the more worrisome assertion is that the group of seven’s letter had “caused "considerable hurt and dismay" among staff and students”, as if that matters.
Now, this transforms Krauss from someone who is merely wrong to someone who is an idiot.
- cycomanic 4y agoThe question is, does science contradict how maories build boats? The question is not if Maori had incredible seafaring skills and knowledge about navigation. The question is Maori mythsticism an equally valid system for explaning the world? If you believe in this relativism, than the only conclusion is that the fundamental Christian genesis is also equally as valid and we should also teach creation in science classes. I strongly reject this view.
- robonerd 4y agoScience classes should be reserved for teaching scientific things. I think you, I and Krauss would all agree on that much. I wish it were uncontroversial, but evidently it isn't. However Krauss seems to goes further. If knowledge is asserted to only come from scientific means, and if the purpose of schooling is to impart knowledge, that seems to leave little room for classes which don't purport to be science classes in the first place. You could presumably make room for these classes through twisted logic along the lines of "Actually English Literature is science because we're making empirical observations about the words written on this paper...", but I don't think there is much real utility in this line of reasoning. It's much simpler to simply accept there are some subjects that have value yet aren't science.
- cycomanic 4y agoI think you are taking a very narrow interpretation of what Krauss is saying. Nowhere in his essay does he talk about that we should not be teaching religion, art, music, literature and that they don't have value. Remember that he is replying to an initiative to bring Maori perspectives (mysticism) into science classes as an equally valid system to explain the physical world, to which he answers the only valid way of explaining the physical world is the scientific process.
- robonerd 4y agoAs I said, I agree with most of what Krauss said. I object mainly to his assertion that empirical knowledge is the only kind of knowledge. Whether you restrict the scope of consideration to physical phenomena or not, he's going too far with that assertion.
- yk 4y ago> The question is, does science contradict how maories build boats? as you claim in your next sentence > The question is not if Maori had incredible seafaring skills and knowledge about navigation. so no, they work therefore they don't contradict science. And the thing is, that science class is anyhow highly simplified, so you may as well teach them in a Maori context.
- zozbot234 4y agoBuilding boats would be academically comprised under naval architecture, which is not "science".